[nc-review] [DRAFT Report] DNSO REVIEW version 1.0

["YJ Park" <yjpark@aptld.org>]

Hello members of DNSO review committee,

Understanding some of you are on vacation as I had earlier,
however I think there has been quite long silence for a while
and the "SHOW MUST GO ON."

Therefore, I submit a draft report which tries to incorporate
the ideas which was once circulated in this list by Theresa, Roberto,
Roger, and Elisabeth. This awaits your responses and inputs
in order to be submitted as report in the next NC teleconference
meeting, Sept 21.

Thanks for your cooperation in advance,

YJ
------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      2000.
8. 28.

Names Council Review Committee
[DRAFT Report] DNSO REVIEW version 1.0

Members of NC Review Committee
Theresa Swinehart
Roger Cochetti
Hirofumi Hotta
Paul Kane
Patricio Poblete
Axel Aus der Muhlen
YJ Park

Non-NC Members of Review Committee
Roberto Gaetano
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Pindar Wong
Louis Touton
Andrew McLaughlin

Destination: This draft report is intended for further discussion at the
NC teleconfernce meeting on Sept. 21 2000.

Background of the DNSO Review Committee:
Since the DNSO was recognized during the Berlin ICANN meeting
in 1999 May, the DNSO has set up the Uniform Dispute Resolution
Policy(UDRP) through a series of works by Working Group A,
Names Council's review on Working Group A report followed by
its recommendation based upon the Working Group A's report
to the Board and the final adoption by the Board.

Secondly, DNSO is under new gTLD creation process through another
series of works by Working Group B and C, Names Council's review
on Working Group B and C reports followed by its recommendations
to the Board which half-adopted and half-denied the consensus of the
reports in finalizing the NC's position.

There have been quite noticeble concerns in 1) the role of Working Groups,
2) the functions and responsibilities of Names Council 3) where General
Assembly is located within the DNSO 4) the relations between NC and
other relevant entities such as Board, ICANN Staff, Working Groups, GA
etc. and 5) the orginal review on the DNSO constituency sturucture.

Therefore, the attempt to review DNSO has been discussed during the
Yokohama ICANN meeting under support from ICANN Board and
its staff so as to ameliorate DNSO.

Objectives of the DNSO Review Committee:

- To review the DNSO's responsibilities and its works.
- To recommend for making DNSO function as designed.
- To be discussed with more relevant stakeholders such as
   members of Working Group or General Assembly or Constituency.

DNSO Responsibilities:
------------------------
1) To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled these responsibilities?

With the responsibility of advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy
issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSO has the primary
responsibility for developing and recommending substantive policies
regarding to the domain name system. Additionally, the Board can reer
proposals for substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the
DNSO for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.

Retrospecting the NC's substantial works so far,

    - DNSO Board election.
    - DNSO Working Group Report review: A, B, C
    - Teleconference/ Physical Meetings during the DNSO/ICANN

    Even in the reviewing process, what NC has done was
    confirmation whether NC can see the consensus on each
    Working Group's Report delegating ICANN staff to implement
    the specific schedules and policies and insulating NC with
    other communications channels both consciously and unconsciously.

NC admits NC has failed to fulfill these responsibilities as requested.
Even not close at all. Therefore, I would like to suggest as follows;

A. After asking ICANN staff to describe all the details which definitely
    need lots of legal and technical expertise, NC should review
    wether or not such missions have been properly done by the staff.

B. The informal meetings between NC and Board are expected in the
    ICANN meeting to update each other. There have been some cases
    which made some members of NC perplexed by abrupt ICANN Board
    decisions such as ICANN and NSI contract and New gTLD decision.

C. To make sure that if NC can't find any consensus in any
    Working Group's Report, NC is required to come back to
    Working Group with further works rather than concluding that
    there was no consensus in the report.

2) Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?
    Some criteria or questions have been listed as follows;

  - Do the Constituencies communicate with their NC reps ?
  - Are NC reps discussing with Constituencies members ?
    Reporting to them ? Considering Constituencies input ?
  - Is it up to each Constituency to define its relationship with
    NC reps or shall DNSO (ICANN) have some minimal mandatory
    requirements for all ?
  -What happen if an elected NC rep does not attend NC meetings,
    ignore his Constituency members and does not resign ?
  -What if an elected NC rep publicly considers that ICANN process
    and DNSO structure are of no interest and is acting against
    both of them ?
  - Some Constituencies rely on ICANN definition for its membership
    and therefore rely on more or less strong day-to-day relationship
    with ICANN staff.

Therefore, based upon such concerns expressed here, NC recommends
that the communication

A. Between each constituency and its NC members

B. Between ICANN staff and NC members

C. Between ICANN staff and constituency members

D. Between DNSO and other SOs such as ASO and PSO

should be more open and easy to be accessible upon the requests.

DNSO Structure:
------------------
3) Does the existing structure work? If not, can it be improved?

-  Are the constituencies a correct division? Should there be different
   divisions in the DNSO? E.g., users v. providers?

-  Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness
    of the DNSO and NC?

 -  The GA has improve subsequently to the elections of the chairs
    i.e. what should be the future responsibilities of the GA be?

The Borderline centering NC and others.
-----------------------------------------
How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed
management of ICANN?

Are diversified entities best managed under a centralized or a
decentralized structure?

The concerns in "More Distributed/Decentralized" Secretariat
are expected to be materialized through the diversified secretariats.

A. ICANN Secretariat

B. DNSO Secretariat

C. Constituency's Secretariat

[NOTE] This issue always encounters the efficiency vs diversity
therefore, the balance between these two values should be equally
respected when it is implemented. FYI, the concept of interim
ccTLD secretariat right now can be a good example as a long-term
role mode for the equivalent entities.

This secretariat encourages the five regions to participate in the
secretariat
in a various format such as from translation to operation every-day basis
however, the true spirit in this based upon the diversified secretariat.