RE: [nc-review] Resending per MdR discussion, FW: [council] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Roberto, where you say "(plus the additional recent one that
WG-D has not come to a real procedure to start WGs, and so we can't start")

If you were referring to my comment about WG-D, I was saying that to
reinforce our need to to start this (list for) WG-F immediately, not to
delay it.

Peter de Blanc



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
R.Gaetano@iaea.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 3:06 AM
To: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; council@dnso.org; nc-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-review] Resending per MdR discussion, FW: [council] NC
Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.


Good morning.
Before taking action on this I would like to know whether it is correct or
not that a WG on DNSO has been established in MdR.
I see now exactly what I told Ken Stubbs and YJ in MdR, that I feared the
next step could be to claim that the decision was not clear, that it was not
what it was meant, and the usual things (plus the additional recent one that
WG-D has not come to a real procedure to start WGs, and so we can't start
one).
So, what I do need before taking further action, is:

1. Does
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400-2.html
point V.H., reproduced below, mean that a WG will be started re: DNSO
Review?
   H.   Chicoine: Motion to make YJ the chair of a WG to address certain
DNSO specific issues that were raised by YJ. Approved by show of hands.

2. If "yes", what is the objection to start it (if any), and how are we
going to proceed? I understand that YJ has already a tentative timetable.
All we need is a mailing list to start.

3. If "no" what is the answer of the NC to the motion of the GA to start
such a WG? If not superseded by V.H. above, V.D.2. will obviously apply.

I believe that the credibility of the NC is at stake here.

Regards
Roberto




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 05 December 2000 0:48
> To: 'names council'; nc-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-review] Resending per MdR discussion, FW: [council] NC
> Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.
>
>
> All,
>
> In follow-up to agreement at the Marina del Ray Names Council Meeting,
> please find below the resending of the NC review
> questionnaire for comment.
> As you recall, due to the very limited responses received before the
> November meeting (including from only two constituencies),
> this is being
> recirculated to ensure input from all constituencies, general
> assembly, and
> the DNSO Review Working Group.
>
> AGAIN, please each NC Review representative, coordinate with the other
> constituency representatives, to ensure that the document has been
> circulated and input has been received from your
> constituencies. Those that
> have already provided input are welcome to add more comments, or just
> provide a note that comments remain as they are. Roberto,
> please as Chair of
> the GA forward to the GA for input and discussion.
>
> The timeline is as follows. The NC Review Task Force must
> receive comments
> by January 10, 2001. PLEASE NOTE, while this extension of the
> DNSO review is
> necessary due to limited responses received, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL
> EXTENSION. The NC Task Force will then have 1 week to prepare
> the report
> based on response to forward to the ICANN Board. The report will be
> forwarded to the NC on the 17th, for discussion and approval
> at the NC call
> on January 24th. Subsequent to NC approval it will be sent to
> the ICANN
> board, where it will be posted for public comment.
>
> Theresa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org
> [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Theresa Swinehart
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:25 PM
> To: nc-review@dnso.org; 'names council'
> Cc: Louis Touton (E-mail); Ken Stubbs (E-mail)
> Subject: [council] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.
>
>
> All NC Review and NC members,
>
> Please find below the DNSO review 2.0 to be forwarded to all
> constituencies.
> Constituency representatives are responsible for forwarding
> this to their
> constituencies, and ensuring that any constituency comments
> are forwarded to
> the NC Review committee. Instructions on comments is in the
> document below
> under 'Instructions for responding'.
>
> Responses by October 9th would be most useful, and will be
> included in what
> is forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later
> responses will also
> be incorporated in the report with conclusions and
> recommendations from the
> NC to the Board one week prior to the Los Angeles meeting.
>
> Comments from the GA are included in this outreach, and all
> can participate
> in that forum as well (i.e., this is a working group of the
> whole). Roberto
> is the point of contact, and together with Harald, should
> provide to the
> review committee comments from the GA.
>
> Specific for Constituency and GA representatives: In addition
> to collecting
> comments on the document below, we also need to include
> information on the
> growth and development of the DNSO. This information will be collected
> specifically in coordination with the respective
> constituencies, GA, and
> secretariat. Please provide as constituency representatives
> the responses
> for your respective constituencies, and/or where relevant.
>
> How have the membership of constituencies grown over the past year?
>
> How has the GA grown?
>
> How has contribution to ICANN and NC secretariat increased in
> past year?
>
> How many new countries added to membership in past year?
>
> How many countries are not represented in DNSO?
>
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> DNSO Review 2.0 --
>
> Outline for the DNSO Review
>
> Status of Draft: This document is the result of several
> drafts (1.1-1.3)
> discussed in the NC review, and NC, to formulate a document
> with questions
> that would provide a basis for constituencies to comment and
> review the
> DNSO. Document 2.0 was prepared following the NC
> teleconference September
> 21, 2000 and comments received following circulation after the call.
>
> Instructions for responding:
>
> Document 2.0 (which is Draft 1.3 with last NC comments) 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.
>
> In responses please provide concrete examples and the basis
> for conclusions,
> rather than just conclusory statements. Please also make
> clear from whom
> (not the person's name, but what interest(s) they represent)
> the comments
> are coming from. Please also offer 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.
>
> Time for Comments: Comments and responses to questions in document 2.0
> received by October 9th would be useful and can be included in what is
> forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses
> will also, of
> course, be incorporated in the report containing conclusions and
> recommendations from the NC prior to the Los Angeles meeting.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> III. 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 the
> responsibilities in A, B and C?
>
> ·	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?
>
>
> 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?
>
> ·	How do you ensure that individuals who choose to form
> an individual
> constituency represent the vast interests
> of individuals ?
>
> ·	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?
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>