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

["Cochetti, Roger" <rogerc@netsol.com>]

Like everyone else, I am grateful to Theresa and YJ for their work on the
draft report.  It strikes me as a fairly comprehensive catalogue of
important questions about the performance of the DNSO and the NC. 

I have held off until this morning's Council meeting on offering comments,
however, so I could listen to others' perspectives on what our deliverable
should be.  I have to admit to being uncomfortable with the idea of a
Council report to the ICANN Board, even a preliminary report, that is
limited to a series of questions.  I've felt from the beginning that we add
real value to the extent that we reach conclusions and offer
recommendations.  

It seems to me that we should be offering specific suggestions; either that
specific DNSO things are working well or that they are not; and if they are
not how we think they can be improved.  I gather that the main plan would be
to offer a report that mainly includes a list of questions by October 13th;
and then a report that includes conclusions/recommendations by some later
-but still timely- date (i.e. in time for the November NC meeting).

If my understanding is correct, then I don't want to delay the conclusion of
Draft 1.3 of questions, but I'd like to suggest that we move as rapidly as
possible into the conclusions/recommendations phase of our work.  This phase
is likely to be more messy, reveal different perceptions of what's working
and what's not, and lead us into some discussions about how things could be
done differently.  

I think we should start that effort sooner rather than later.





 

-----Original Message-----
From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 1:48 PM
To: 'Dr. Nii Quaynor'; 'names council'
Cc: nc-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Draft 1.2 for the NC-Review


Nii,

Thank you very much. I'll include your and all comments received and resend
it to the Names Council, with all info. as discussed on today's call. If
everyone could get me comments by this Friday, September 22, that would be
great. I'll then send out the revised over the weekend so we can move
forward as discussed.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Nii Quaynor [mailto:quaynor@ghana.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 12:52 PM
> To: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; 'names council'
> Cc: nc-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Draft 1.2 for the NC-Review
>
>
> Hi Theresa,
>
> The draft is very good and suggest you consider some
> quantitative questions
> that can be objectively answered without much debate in addition. The
> examples might be:
>
> Growth
> --------
> How have the membership of constituencies grown over the past year?
> How has the GA grown?
>
> Revenues
> ---------
> How has contribution to ICANN and NC secretariat increased in
> past year?
>
> Outreach
> ---------
> How many new countries added to membership in past year?
> How many countries are not represented in DNSO?
>
> Decisions
> ----------
> How many policy issues were considered compared to previous year?
> How many recommendations were made compared to previous year?
>
>
> These type of questions give us some basic evaluation data and records
> progress.
>
> Hope this fits and is useful.
>
> Regards,
> Nii
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
> To: 'names council' <council@dnso.org>
> Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 12:17 AM
> Subject: [council] FW: Draft 1.2 for the NC-Review
>
>
> > All,
> >
> > In preparation for my presentation to the NC on the DNSO review
> committee's
> > work on Thursday's call, please find attached Draft 1.2 -
> DNSO Review --
> > Work in Progress which was circulated to the NC-Review list.
> >
> > Following the NC call, and discussion and/or suggestions, NC-review
> members
> > will be asked to forward this draft to their respective
> constituencies
> (and
> > Roberto to the GA).
> >
> > Please note, this is a work in progress.
> >
> > 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).
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>