<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] DNSO Review Task Force
Good afternoon.
Please find below the comments I have sent to the DNSO Review Task Force
interim report.
I also attach the report itself (converted in plain text).
Regards
Roberto
---------------------------
Philip,
These are my comments on the document.
1. Consultation
I concur with both recommendations (creation of WGs and use of Web-based
fora).
2. Election of GA Chair
The GA has stated several times its preference for direc election of its
Chair without adult supervision by NC.
IMHO, the validation step by NC of the results of the GA vote is unnecessary
and dangerous: if the NC only endorses the GA vote, it adds process without
adding value, if the NC chooses a different candidate, it creates a very
dangerous conflict with the GA.
I respectfully disagree with the reasons given to maintain the statu quo
because:
a) it is true that the GA Chair must represent all constituencies, but being
vote in the GA open to everybody, all constituency members are able to
register to vote (subscription to the voting registry will not expose the
registrant to the GA traffic, he/she will only receive the voting ballots)
b) the objections to the 2001 electoral process were handled egregiously by
the DNSO Secretariat and the Watchdog Committee, assisted by the former GA
Chairpersons, and there has been no need for NC intervention - on the
contrary, the delay created by the additional step has created more
confusion and irritation.
3. New Constituencies
While the Apeendix B constitutes a useful guideline for the applicants to
address the major points of concern the NC may have, the principle that the
creation of new constituencies shall have no higher burden or more
restrictive condition than the creation of the initial constituencies shall
apply.
Reference to the application of the initial constituencies should provide
guidance on this subject.
4. Language diversity
I am not happy with the outcome, but I have to concur, obtorto collo, that
the financial burden on the DNSO to provide an acceptable solution goes
beyond the reasonable budget.
5. Consensus
While I agree on the second part of the recommendation, i.e. the distinction
of the 2/3 vs. 1/2 NC vote as consensus, I do believe that the Working Group
should be allowed to declare "consensus of the Working Group" following a
straw poll in the WG itself.
It should be made clear that "consensus of the WG" is not equivalent of
"consensus of the NC", but it should nevertheless be kept on record.
Similarly, when I was the Chairman of the GA, I have declared a couple of
times "consensus of the GA". This has never been misinterpreted as
"consensus of the DNSO", but has nevertheless be put on record.
Failure to do so may have negative ripercussions on the activity and
participation of the Working Group, as one of the motivators for the attempt
to find a convergent solution is exactly the attempt to find a "consensus".
If this primary objective of a Working Group is nullified, the participants
will have no reason for trying to compromise, and the result of the work
will suffer.
I am reporting to the GA by copying this text and the original document to
the GA-list.
Regards
Roberto
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Interim report of the Names Council review task force September 2001 v1
Timeline and process
30 September Deadline for task force comment on draft.
21 October Deadline for comment on interim report sent for public comment
and to NC.
28 October Deadline for final report produced by task force.
13 November Final report adopted by NC at LA meeting
Authority and terms of reference
Names Council business plan 2001-2002 and NC endorsed proposal of interim
review task force May 2001.
6.2. Consultation. Review the recommendations of WG D and the Review Task
Force and Working Group Report and implement a means of outreach and
stakeholder consultation with built-in mechanisms for fulfilling the
objectives.
ACTION: Accept the framework proposed by WG-D as is, and turn the WG D
procedures into a sharper set of guidelines. Give it a chance to work, if it
doesn't, then take steps to make alternative proposals. Related to this,
determine alternatives to conducting working group activities, such as using
web-based fora where proposed text is actively amended and worked on towards
consensus.
6.3. GA Chair. Review the current system of election for the General
Assembly Chair and propose changes if required.
ACTION: Form a small group (or include in a possible implementation task
force mandate) to report on the current system of elections for the GA
chair, and assess whether changes are beneficial or required.
6.4. Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential
contribution and representativeness of an individual domain name holder's
constituency.
ACTION: There is strong support for an individuals constituency. The
outstanding issue is next steps. Options to discuss on next steps are: 1)
Making the GA the basis for the constituency, or 2) Accepting independent
proposals by a certain date, or 3) Form a task force (7 constituencies) to
set the criteria for an individual constituency (reviewing work already done
and consolidating it into a proposal).
6.5 Language diversity. Recommend cost effective means to provide language
diversity in the context of DNSO decisions. Form a small group (3-5) who may
co-opt translation experts to make recommendations.
ACTION: Determine costs, and next steps to implement a cost effective means
to provide translations.
6.6. Consensus. Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for
the purposes of NC consultation activities.
ACTION: Form a task force (7 constituencies) to review consensus models used
elsewhere and outline practical definition.
1. Consultation (business plan reference 6.2)
Recommendation on working groups
The adoption of the guidelines for working groups in appendix A is
recommended.
Web-based fora as alternatives to conducting working group activities
The task force intentionally decide to use for its own work, and thus trial,
a web-based fora recommended by a member of the task force. The results of
the trial were inconclusive but in comparison with the exchange of e-mail
via lists there seemed little advantage. Most notably, the following
irritations were found:
* there were too many options for posting information
* an announcements section truncated long messages
* an auto-notification option had to be activated and offered too many
options
* the system was overly geared to frequent voting
* there was no neat way of segregating separate threads, to enable several
discussions to occur simultaneously.
A separate trial of a free service enabling audio and video conferencing was
also undergone by some task force members. Getting the system to work was
not easy. It was subsequently found also that the system will not work when
the user is behind a NAT. This was felt to be a severe limitation given the
increasing need for network security.
Recommendation
Further input from other web-based fora is welcome but at this time adoption
of any one model in place of e-mail lists is not recommended.
2. Election of the General Assembly (GA) Chair (business plan reference 6.3)
Article VI-B.2.i of the by-laws states:
"The NC shall elect the Chairman of the GA annually".
The NC for the years 2000 and 2001 has interpreted this by adopting the
following practice:
* the GA is invited to make nominations
* nominations receiving 10 endorsements go forward to an election by the GA
* the GA proposes to the NC the winner and runner-up as the new GA chair and
alternate chair respectively
* the NC endorses the recommendation by a formal vote.
In considering the practice the task force believes this process allows full
democratic participation within the GA, and presents the NC with a simple
decision when all is satisfactory with the election process.
The additional safeguard of an NC vote (in compliance with the by-laws)
seems appropriate for two reasons:
a) despite the tendency for the GA mail lists to be dominated by people not
choosing to participate via constituencies and sometimes excluded from
participation, the GA chair should nevertheless represent all constituencies
and so participation by the NC as a body elected by current constituencies
seems to be correct,
b) the endorsement process provides a safeguard in the event of objections
to the electoral process. Discussion following the 2001 election would
appear to vindicate the existence of such a safeguard.
Recommendation
No change to the current procedure is recommended.
3. New Constituencies (business plan reference 6.4)
The task force chose option three from the terms of reference but did not
consider itself the competent body to set criteria for an individuals
constituency per se. The task force decided therefore to produce a set of
criteria which would help to clarify questions of purpose, duplication and
representation for any new DNSO constituency.
ICANN by-laws VI-b.3.d
"Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition
as a new or separate Constituency. ... The Board may create new
Constituencies in response to such a petition ... if it determines that such
action would serve the purposes of the Corporation. .....Whenever the Board
posts a petition ... it will notify the names council and will consider any
response to that notification prior to taking action."
In other words any group may ask the Board and the Board will consult with
the Names Council. It is therefore necessary for the Names Council to have
a basis upon which to evaluate any such petition.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the petitioner for a new DNSO constituency is
requested by the Names Council to include in any petition the answers to the
questions specified in appendix B.
4. Language diversity (business plan reference 6.5)
In seeking to recommend cost effective means to provide language diversity
in the context of DNSO decisions, the task force was cognisant of current
DNSO finances. The entire costs of running the DNSO are born by
contributions raised by the constituencies - a process which both imposes a
burden on some constituencies and wastes time for all. The task force
quickly agreed not to waste time in seeking translations from commercial
suppliers because, at this time, there is no finance available.
Given also that throughout the existence of the DNSO there has been a call
for consistent voluntary translation that has not been answered the task
force also decided not to pursue this option further at this time. The task
force would be delighted to hear from volunteers alerted to this need during
the public consultation phase of this report. However, the task force also
recognises that a piecemeal approach to translation is not desirable and
that any voluntary effort has to be sustainable, based on a coherent set of
languages, and be of reliable quality.
The task force therefore chose to explore options for machine translation.
It was however unable to find a recommendation by any professional
translator for any of the free internet-based translation services.
Further more, should it be the case that one or other of these services are
useful if not optimal, they are of course available now for any internet
user to translate any page from the DNSO web site. This possibility is at
present the best option for cost-effective translation. It would not seem
appropriate without extensive trials for the DNSO to recommend one site
above others. The task force would welcome any intervention which would
advance this objective further.
Recommendation
Given its highly limited resources and the higher priority of substantive
policy issues, the DNSO should not spend more time on this, but note the
progress being made by ICANN staff in this regard and where appropriate to
participate in any cost-effective solution.
5. Consensus (business plan reference 6.6)
Relevance
The task force was asked to recommend to the NC a practical definition of
consensus for the purposes of NC consultation activities. Consensus is
relevant to DNSO decision making as it is referenced in the by-laws and
provides certain information to the Board.
VI-B.2.b. "The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus
building process of the DNSO."
VI-B.2.d. "If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the
DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus position
shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation."
"If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a community
consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC
recommendation."
In the past the chairs of DNSO working groups have tried to establish
guidance to the NC about the degree of consensus within the working group on
issues, in order to help with the subsequent NC recommendation to the Board.
There has not been consistency in this guidance.
Definitions and usage
Lexicon definitions provide some help.
Consensus, n. Agreement (of opinion, testimony, etc.) Concise Oxford
Dictionary
Consensus, n. a) general agreement, unanimity.
b) the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned. Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary
The most useful definition here is "judgement arrived at by most of those
concerned" but to make this practical needs two enablers:
- a representative sample of DNSO stakeholders
- a vote of this sample with a pre-determined threshold.
Where do we find a representative sample of DNSO stakeholders?
DNSO working groups as currently formed are by construction not a
representative sample of DNSO stakeholders because they are open to
participation by anyone who chooses. It is possible but improbable that such
a group will at any moment in time be so representative. This suggests that
discussing consensus in such groups is unlikely to be productive and that
the guidance given to the NC will be poor.
The Names Council is constructed to represent DNSO stakeholder interests
and, notwithstanding demands by individuals to participate, is the best
structure we currently have to be representative. This validates the by-laws
faith in the NC as being a possible home for consensus itself but does not
help the NC in its task of having to "determine that the DNSO process has
produced a community consensus".
In essence the by-laws charge the NC with a task but offer no help as to how
the task should be done. It seems therefore that the most logical route (and
indeed the route that experience shows us is the one that has been followed)
is to say that the NC vote itself on a recommendation, being reflective of
the elected representatives of DNSO stakeholders, is the only practical
means of determining community consensus.
Recommendation
Working groups with open participation may hold straw polls but should not
describe the results using the terminology consensus.
A 2/3 vote of the NC should be taken as meaning consensus on the issue and
the by-laws should be changed to remove the obligation on the NC to
"determine community consensus" with the implication it is an external
factor. Proposed wording for the by-laws change follows.
VI-B.2.d. NEW
"If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC vote on a recommendation that
recommendation shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus
recommendation."
"If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members
of the NC vote on a recommendation that recommendation shall be forwarded to
the Board as an NC recommendation."
Appendix A
DNSO procedures for Working Groups
Source: Implementation and adaptation of the recommendations of WG D 2001
1. Definition of working group
A working group is a group established by the Names Council (NC) of the
Domain Name Supporting Organisation (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) at its own initiative or by way of
considering a petition from the General Assembly, and charged with a
specific task.
2. Objective
The objective of a Working Group is to:
a) formulate positions on policies,
b) facilitate the development of consensus support for policies
c) produce a report to the NC highlighting these positions and level of
support.
3. Membership.
Working Groups are open to all DNSO participants defined as follows:
- members of the Names Council
- the Names Council secretariat
- members of the ICANN Board
- the ICANN officers and staff
- the GA Chair and Co-Chair
- members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA voting register.
Persons new to the ICANN process who wish to participate in a working group
will be asked to join the ga-announce list to qualify for membership.
Working Group membership is open throughout the life of the Working Group.
4. Criteria
Before establishing a working group the Names Council will consider the
following criteria:
a) whether the issue is relevant to the mission of the DNSO
b) the need for a consensus policy
c) whether the issue overlaps with that of an existing Working Group
d) whether there is sufficient interest within the DNSO in the issue and
enough people willing to expend the effort to produce the desired result
e) whether there is enough expertise within the DNSO on the issue.
5. Terms of reference.
The Names Council will establish a small interim committee to draft terms of
reference (a charter) which will at minimum specify:
a) a narrow and achievable objective
b) a timeframe for achieving the objective
c) a set of interim objectives by which to measure progress
d) a member of the Names Council who will act as a Supervisory Chair.
e) a short descriptive name for the Working Group.
The draft terms will be posted to the NC list and the DNSO ga-announce
mailing list as a public notice that the formation of the Working Group is
being considered. After a review period lasting at least a week the NC,
after reviewing comments, will approve the original or modified terms.
Following this the DNSO secretariat will establish:
* a mailing list or such other electronic forum
* a procedure for subscribing and un-subscribing to the Working Group
* a dedicated web page on the DNSO web site (www.dnso.org)
* an accessible mailing list archive.
6. Supervisory Chair and WG Chair
The Supervisory Chair has five key functions.
a) to be responsible for the initial establishment of the WG.
b) to act as returning officer for holding elections for a WG chair. These
elections should take place early but not too early once WG participants
have got to know one another. Specifically, a vote to choose such a person
from early group participants whose chairing abilities may be unknown should
be avoided. The Supervisory Chair may themselves stand for election in which
case another NC member will supervise the election.
b) to take on all the responsibilities of the Chair until the election is
complete.
c) to provide frequent liaison with the Names Council.
d) to ensure the WG Chair is fulfilling his/her responsibilities.
The WG Chair's key functions are:
a) to be responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference in the time
specified,
b) to be responsible for working group discipline, focus and achievements,
c) to prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line sessions,
d) to ensure that the Working Group operates in an open and fair manner,
e) to ensure that discussions are relevant (the Chair should propose a set
of topics for e-mail subject headers),
f) to intervene to stop off-topic communication,
g) to summarise outcomes of each issue,
h) to achieve interim and final objectives in conformance with the terms of
reference.
And for face to face meetings the WG Chair is required:
i) to ensure an attendance list is made,
j) to publish a short report on the session within 10 days.
The WG Chair and the Supervisory Chair report to the Names Council.
7. Removal of the Supervisory Chair or Working Group Chair
In the event that the WG Chair:
a) acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth
in the Working Group's terms of reference, or
b) fails to achieve interim results
then the Supervisory Chair after consultation with the Names Council, upon
the reasonable request of one or more Working Group members, shall have the
authority to remove and hold elections for another WG Chair.
In the event that the Supervisory Chair:
a) acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth
in the Working Group's terms of reference, or
b) fails to fulfil the responsibilities of a Supervisory Chair, as set forth
above, then the Names Council shall have the authority to remove and appoint
another Supervisory Chair.
8. New ideas
New ideas that are on-topic will be made in a new thread with a subject
heading that succinctly and clearly identifies its subject matter. Ideas
that are off topic will be pointed out by the WG Chair and stopped.
9. Procedural questions
Any member of the Working Group may raise a question to the WG Chair or the
Supervisory Chair that relates to the procedures of the group (a point of
order). Any procedural question which is not answered to the satisfaction of
the person asking it should be directed to the NC Intake Committee for
consideration. nc-intake@dnso.org
10. Voting
From time to time progress will be advanced by holding straw polls to
determine the majority view. A motion to approve a draft proposal or report
(or any section thereof) may be made by any member of the Working Group.
Once seconded and approved by the WG Chair, such motion shall be put to a
vote of the Working Group members. In such an event, the WG Chair shall poll
the Working Group members. Motions that receive a majority of votes cast
shall be deemed approved.
Consensus. Because of the diverse nature of open working groups the results
of any vote will be taken solely to assist with progress within the group. A
majority vote of a working group should be described as a majority vote of a
working group. No claim to DNSO stakeholder consensus should be attributed
to such a vote.
11. Real time work
Working Group members or subsets of the group may meet in real-time (in
person or via a form of electronic conferencing). Decisions reached or
drafts developed during real-time meetings must be reviewed on the mailing
list or other forum.
12. Proposal development
Groups drafting position statements should publish them to the WG. Groups
submitting interim position statements should be free to revise those
statements after reading the reports or others. Working Groups should
publish the position statements for a period of comment, specifically
seeking comments not only on the substance of the positions but also on
impact and cost issues. These positions papers should not be the end result
of the Working Group's efforts, but should serve as tools for finding common
ground and addressing concerns of specific groups. Working Group members
should strive to make compromises when appropriate.
13. Disputes and role of an interim report
Many conflicts can be resolved by simple votes. The majority view goes
forward and is documented in an interim report. However, where in the
opinion of the WG Chair, there is a significant minority proposal, this
proposal should also be documented in the interim report of the Working
Group.
The interim report should contain:
(a) an abstract of all proposals which achieved a meaningful level of
support,
(b) a clear statement of what is being proposed and its underlying rationale
(c) an analysis of who and what systems might be impacted by the proposal
(d) the specific steps that would be necessary to take to implement the
proposal
(e) the costs and risks, if any, of implementing the proposal and how they
would be borne
(f) a statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal
and what support the proposal has in the various stakeholder communities.
14. Draft final report
The goal of the Working Group process is to produce a Report containing
recommendations for submission to the NC.
The Report should contain the following sections:
a) Executive summary of not more than 1000 words.
b) Terms of reference
c) Conclusion - a clear and concise statement of the proposal discussed in
the Working Group and the conclusion reached.
d) Impact analysis - a full analysis of who might be impacted, including
other supporting organisations, and in what ways, by such a policy.
e) Constituency impact reviews - a summary and analysis of evidence provided
by DNSO constituencies.
f) Record of outreach - a record of outreach to any segment of the Internet
community that might be affected by the proposed policy.
g) Minority reports - a fair statement of points in opposition and a
substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the opposition.
h) Supporting arguments - a summary of the best arguments for adoption of
the policy.
i) Risk/Cost analysis - an analysis of the risks and costs of the proposed
policy.
15. Publication and comment period
The interim report and final report should be published, in draft form, to
the General Assembly, Names Council and Constituency secretariats for
debate, comment and criticism prior to their completion. The Working Group
shall provide such advance notice and comment period as is reasonable
considering the complexity, importance, and urgency of the policy under
consideration.
16. Final report
The final report shall be submitted by the WG Chair to the Names Council
within the time frame specified in the terms of reference.
17. Termination
Working Groups will be disbanded automatically on completion of their task
or disbanded by the Names Council earlier if deadlock is evident.
18. Revising the terms of reference
The terms of reference may be re-visited by the Names Council on the request
of the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair.
Appendix B
Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies
1. Need
1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?
1.2 What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now
lacking?
2. Common interest
2.1 What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new
constituency share?
3. Distinction
3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the
proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly
and other parts of ICANN?
4. Representation
4.1 How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new
constituency be?
4.2 What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of
representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?
5. Alternatives
5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
recognition of a new constituency?
5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could
be fulfilled?
6. Organisation on a global scale
6.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
organise the proposed new constituency?
6.2 Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to command
the financial and human resources required by a constituency?
7. Support within the DNSO
7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
seek support from existing constituencies?
8. Impact assessment
8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing
constituencies?
8.2 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the
finances and administration of the DNSO?
8.3 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy
formation within the DNSO?
Interim report NC TF Review September 2001 page 1
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|