[nc-review] RE: Draft 1.2 for the NC-Review

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Apologies, to prevent confusion, Subject Header correction. This is draft
1.2.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 5:08 PM
> To: 'nc-review@dnso.org'
> Cc: 'Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com'
> Subject: Draft 1.1 for the NC-Review
>
>
> All,
>
> As noted earlier, please find below a draft 1.2. This draft
> is a consolidation of comments and discussion received on the
> list, and also contains the preliminary GA list comments
> Roberto had summarized on Friday for the NC-review list (if
> it is too early to include these in the draft, please let me
> know). I have tried to capture the essence of all comments,
> and merged various texts. Please let me know if you notice
> any major points missing.
>
> If NC-review members agree, I suggest that we forward this
> draft to the Names Council in preparation for the September
> 21st call where the proposed questions/context will be
> discussed. Please provide your input and thoughts.
>
> I have pasted the document into the text, to allow everyone
> to read it. While the layout is perhaps more difficult to
> follow, it is my understanding that not all can read attachment files.
>
> On the September 21st NC call, I would like to discuss the
> time-line for the ongoing work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Theresa
>
>
>
> DRAFT 1.2 -- DNSO Review -- WORK IN PROGRESS
>
> Outline for the DNSO Review
>
> STATUS OF DRAFT: This Draft document is a work in progress
> and is intended for further discussion at the NC
> teleconference September 21, 2000. As background, the outline
> was circulated to the NC-Review Committee on August 11th.
> Comments received have been incorporated into draft 1.1. Also
> included are comments received on the GA list, which have
> been compiled by Roberto Gateano who, as Chair of the GA, is
> the liaison to the NC-Review.
>
> Outreach to be carried out: Draft 1.2 must be forwarded by
> each NC-Review Representative to the respective constituency
> for comment and input. Comments are to be compiled by the
> respective NC-Review Representatives, and forwarded to the
> NC-Review committee. The GA Chair will be responsible for
> overseeing the continued GA input to this working progress.
>
> The Berkman Center for Internet and Society has offered to
> help with the DNSO process. Does the NC-review committee wish
> to use this offer at the present stage, or would it be more
> appropriate after the review, when any changes are undertaken?
>
> I. Introduction:
>
> The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, 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 refer proposals for
> substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the
> DNSO for initial consideration and recommendation to the
> Board. Subject to the provision of Article III, Section 3, of
> the ICANN bylaws, the Board shall accept the recommendations
> of the DNSO if it finds that the recommended policy (1)
> furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest of,
> ICANN; (2) is consistent with ICANN’s articles of
> incorporation and bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and
> open processes (including participation by representatives of
> other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not
> reasonably opposed by the ASO or PSO.
>
> II. Background:
>
> The DNSO was formally established in March 1999 as one of
> ICANN’s three SOs. It was formed following extensive global
> discussions and communications, with the intent of trying to
> establish an SO that represented the stakeholders in ICANN
> necessary for developing and recommending substantive polices
> regarding the domain name system. Since its establishment, it
> has made three recommendations for policies to the ICANN
> Board involving dispute resolution, new top-level domains,
> and famous trademarks and the operation of the domain-name
> system.  During this period it has also chosen four directors
> to the ICANN Board through two sets of elections. .With this
> experience with the DNSO’s actual performance, it is now
> appropriate to review the DNSO to determine whether it is
> fulfilling its commitments, and whether it needs to be
> adjusted in order to better fulfill them.
>
> III. Review:
>
> The objectives of the DNSO Review Committee are:
>
> ·	To review the DNSO’s responsibilities and its work.
> ·	To recommend making DNSO function as designed.
> ·	To review and discuss this with the respective
> constituencies, and general assembly of the DNSO.
>
> Outlined below are sections addressing the structure of the
> DNSO, and specific questions on the responsibilities of the
> organization, and the structure. This draft attempts to
> consolidate comments received on draft 1.0, which was
> circulated to the NC-Review.
>
> The review will conclude with recommendations, if any, on how
> to better improve the fulfillment of the responsibilities of
> the organization, and whether any improvements require
> structural changes. The Initial Self-Assessment of the DNSO
> Review is due October 13th.
>
> VI. DNSO Responsibilities:
>
> The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN Board with
> respect to policy issues relating to the domain name system.
> The DNSO’s primary responsibility is to develop and recommend
> substantive policies regarding to the domain name system.
> Additionally, the Board can refer substantive policies
> regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial
> consideration and recommendation to the Board.
>
> To date, the DNSO has been tasked with the following
> responsibilities:
>
> A. Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group
> A, Names Council’s review of Working Group A report, followed
> by the Names Council recommendation based on the Working
> Group A’s report to the Board and the final adoption by the
> ICANN Board.
>
> B. new generic Top Level Domains (new gTLDs): Working Group B
> and C, Names Council review of Working Group B and C’s
> reports, followed by its recommendations to the Board.
>
> C. DNSO ICANN Board Elections: Two elections held: 1) October
> 1999, choosing three ICANN Board members for 3, 2, 1 years
> respectively; 2) September 2000, filling the three year seat
> for the 1 year expired seat.
>
> ·	To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled these responsibilities?
>
> ·	Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented
> an adequate consensus of the affected stakeholders?  Have the
> 	viewpoints of all stakeholders been considered?
>
> ·	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?
>
> ·	To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as
> policies, have they received the support of those being asked
> to 	implement them?
>
> ·	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?
>
> ·	Are the responsibilities of the components (NC,
> Constituencies, GA) and the relationship among them well defined?
>
> ·	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?
>
> ·	Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it
> has addressed?  If not, how can the degree of expertise be
> enhanced?
>
>
> V. Structure:
>
> The structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven
> constituencies, and the General Assembly.
>
> A. Names Council:
>
> Under the ICANN bylaws, the Names Council is responsible for
> the management of the consensus-building process of the DNSO.
> The NC consists of representatives selected by each of seven
> constituencies.  The NC functions via a list serve, regular
> teleconference calls, and physical meetings in conjunction
> with ICANN quarterly meetings. There have been concerns that
> the DNSO Names Council has evolved into a generalist body.
> Questions below aim to address the role of the NC, and how to
> improve it.
>
> ·	Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to
> steer and manage the DNSO consensus process, or can this be
> improved?
>
> ·	What are the proper expectations for the Names Council,
> and what is its proper role in relation to the DNSO and the
> ICANN Board?
>
> ·	Should the NC take a more active role in managing the
> consensus-development process, for example by giving working
> groups more defined charters and more frequently reviewing
> the state of their work?
>
> ·	How can the NC enhance the level of technical or other
> expertise employed in the consensus-development process?
>
> ·	How much or little should the NC be involved in the
> detailed management of ICANN?
>
> ·	Does the NC manage the policy-development process so
> that recommendations are reached in a timely manner?
>
> ·	Does the existing structure work to generate consensus
> recommendations on domain name matters?
>
> ·	Does the Names Council give appropriate level of
> consideration to the views of all affected stakeholders?
>
> ·	The NC recommendations have been criticized as often
> being ‘weak’, or merely reflecting the outcome of the
> respective working groups. How can the NC interpret the
> outcome of the working groups, and formulate a better defined
> and stronger recommendations consistent with the consensus process?
>
> ·	Do the NC representatives adequately communicate with
> their respective constituencies? Do the constituencies
> communicate with their NC representatives?
>
> ·	Does the NC adequately communicate with the ICANN staff
> and Board?
>
> ·	Does the NC adequately communicate with other SO Councils?
>
> ·	After consulting ICANN staff to address details which
> require legal and technical expertise, does the NC review
> whether 	or not such input is sufficient?
>
> ·	How can the NC improve the role of the DNSO under
> ICANN, and improve its ability to provide advice and input to
> the 	ICANN Board on domain name policy issues?
>
>
> COMMENTS RECEIVED on Structure:  From the GA Discussion list:
>
> ·	Some people have expressed concerns at the Constituency
> structure altogether.
> ·	Others, while they consider that there are at the
> moment no practical alternatives to the Constituency
> structure, propose some modifications. Proposal include: the
> reformulation of the Constituencies, aggregating the present
> groups in fewer categories; to improve the representation
> (some groups are under-represented, some over-represented,
> some misrepresented); to define better the balance of power
> between groups (i.e. not to allow one "alliance" among some
> Constituencies to rule); to allow dynamic configuration of
> constituencies as, for instance, some provisions in the Paris Draft.
>
>
> B. Constituencies:
>
> ·	Are the constituencies a correct division? Are all DNSO
> interests adequately represented in the existing constituency
> groups? Do the current divisions aggregate individuals or
> entities with closely aligned interests and permit the
> development of focused positions?
>
> ·	Should the constituencies be reformulated by combining
> user constituencies?  By combining provider constituencies?
> In some other way?
>
> ·	Is it up to each constituency to define its
> relationship with NC representatives or should the DNSO/ICANN
> have some minimal mandatory requirements for all?
>
> ·	What happens if an elected NC rep does not attend NC
> meetings, ignores constituency members? Is this up to the
> constituency to address, or should it be brought to the
> attention of the NC?
>
> ·	Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open
> and transparent channels of dialogue and discussion toward
> the development of community consensus? Do they allow
> effective development of collective positions of those with
> similar interests?  Does this process promote the development
> of overall community consensus?
>
> ·	Does the current constituency division minimize the
> effectiveness of the DNSO and NC?
>
> ·	Are the constituencies adequately representing the
> intended members?  Or are there important parts of the
> Internet Community that may need better representation?
>
> ·	Should there be a constituency for individuals, and if
> so, how should its membership be constituted?
>
> ·	No constituencies have been added since the original
> seven constituencies were recognized (provisionally) in May
> 1999.  What should be the ongoing process for assessing
> whether the constituencies serving the goal of providing
> appropriate forums for affected stakeholder groups?
>
> COMMENTS RECEIVED: From the GA discussion on Individuals
>
> ·	A special case is a Constituency for Individuals.
> ·	There is rough consensus that such a constituency
> should be added, but there is divergence of opinions on whether:
> ·	the Constituency should be limited to Individual Domain
> Name Holders or have a wider charter; is IDNO the core of the
> 	Individual Constituency, or should other groups join in;
>
> ·	The issue of ICANN having not responded to the IDNO
> proposal for Constituency has been raised.
>
>
> C. General Assembly (GA):
>
> ·	What should the future role of the GA be?
>
> ·	Is the function of the GA properly defined?
>
> ·	How can the level of participation by constituency
> members in the GA be improved?
>
> ·	How can the level of participation by GA members in the
> GA be improved?
>
> ·	If changes are made in the constituency structures, and
> possibly an individual constituency added, should the GA
> continue to exist?
>
> D. Working Groups:
>
> ·	Are the working groups an appropriate mechanisms to
> foster consensus in the DNSO?
>
> ·	If the NC can’t find consensus in a working group
> report, what should be the next step?
>
> ·	Are there mechanisms other than working groups that the
> NC should employ in managing the consensus-development
> process? 	For example, assigned task forces?
>
>
> COMMENTS RECEIVED: from the GA discussion
>
> ·	There seem to be consensus for a WG to start,
> addressing at least the point of creating a Constituency for
> individuals.
> ·	Other points raised are more controversial, and should
> be addressed by the Working Group.
>
>
> E. Secretariat:
>
> ·	What is the relationship between the ICANN Secretariat,
> the DNSO secretariat, and the Constituency secretariats?
>
>
> VI. Other Review Questions:
>
> ·	Have the DNSO recommendations furthered the ICANN work
> consistent with the provision in Article VI, Section 2(e), of
> the ICANN Bylaws, that the ICANN Board shall accept
> recommendations of the DNSO if the Board finds that the
> recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in
> the best interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with
> the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and
> open processes (including participation by representatives of
> other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) isn't
> reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization.
>
>
> OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED to include in the review: From the GA
> discussion list
>
> ·	It has been noticed that DNSO is in a peculiar
> situation, because the other Supporting Organization had
> already 	existing working structures (IETF, RIRs).
> ·	The relationship between DNSO and At Large has to be
> defined (but this concerns probably only - or primarily - the GA).
> ·	The consensus building mechanism seems to need
> improvement. Suggestions include: let the GA discuss of the
> results of 	the WGs before forwarding them to the NC;
> improve the debate in the GA (common discussion point among
> Constituencies).
>
>
>
> >
>