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

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Hello Roger,

> I've felt from the beginning that we add
> real value to the extent that we reach conclusions and offer
recommendations.

Agree

> 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).

Agree.

> 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.

Yes. Therefore, it might be more efficient to have a teleconference say
twice a month or so.

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

How about Oct. 5, Thursday teleconfernce?
Thanks,

YJ

>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>