Re: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on DNSO Responsibilities

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

My personal comments only....

At 09:31 03/10/2000 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>·       To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A, B and
>  C?

A (UDRP): Succeeded in creating the policy. Failed to provide a structure 
for its modification after its behaviour in practice has been seen.
B (new GTLDs): Succeeded in expressing a minimal consensus (6-10, 
evaluation). Failed in establishing a procedure for evaluating proposals 
for those 6-10.
6 (votes): In form, yes.

>·       Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate
>consensus of the affected stakeholders?  Have the       viewpoints of all
>stakeholders been considered?

Adequate consensus: To the degree that there was an adequate consensus to 
be found, yes. Has failed to prove that consensus can be reached when there 
are strong conflicts between different stakeholders.
The viewpoints of all stakeholders have been aired. It is impossible to say 
whether they have been considered or not.

>·       Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of being
>timely and being structured with a degree of specificity/flexibility
>appropriate to allow practical implementation?

No. They have been unclear, limited and have taken a long time getting 
produced. They have left far too much of the practical implementation 
details to the ICANN board and ICANN staff. The root cause of this is, I 
believe, the inability to reach consensus.

>·       To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies, have
>they received the support of those being asked to implement them?

Yes (6-10 and UDRP).

>·       Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to its
>attention through the Names Council?
>
>
>·       Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?

Yes, and I don't know.

>·       Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA)
>and the relationship among them well defined?

No.


>·       How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the
>amount of objective consensus building, with its current structure? With
>  a different structure?

Input into the process, an idea:

Abandon constituencies as a basis for reaching proposals. Go with groups of 
named experts and open fora instead, leaving the constituencies with the 
role of saying "yes" or "no" to finished proposals from expert groups.


>·       Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed?
>   If not, how can the degree of expertise be    enhanced?

It has brought a great deal of shouting. It is not clear that this shouting 
has been done mainly, or even to any large degree, by experts.
Some experts say that they cannot participate in DNSO open fora because 
they do not have time or temperament to listen to the noise. If true, this 
is a problem.

My answers only....
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html