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

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

Hello Theresa,

> 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.

Thank you for your works however, it would be much appreciated
to know the detailed decisions before this public list announcement
as a member of Review Task Force instead of this pop-out which is
still self-contradictory to the previous arguments which try to push
the forthcoming Review WG into "Formality" discussion. Some NC
members keep asking for specific timeframe or scope for agreements.

First, I am wondering whether this Task Force does not need such a
formality since this is restricted to NC members only or do you have
any specific reason for not discussing this among Review Task Force?

Second, even though I don't see the procedure here is appropriate,
out of cooperation or team spirit among NC members, I formally
introduce Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency's
discussion updates regarding DNSO Review.

In this process, I want to make a motion to the representatives of
the other constituencies as follows and NC as a whole;

"When the constituency position or discussion update is presented
to the Review Task Force, it would be helpful to see the archived lists
or some proof of evidence how the position or discussion has been
proceeded within the constituency properly."

> each NC Review representative, coordinate with the other
> constituency representatives

NC Review Representative: YJ Park
The other Representatives: Dany Vandromme and Zakaria Amar.

> to ensure that the document has been circulated in the NCC.

[5] NCC Recommendations to Working Groups
     (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:06:59)
[6] NCC Recommendations to Secretariat and the rest.
     (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:09:44)
[3] NCC Recommendations to Constituencies in general
     (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:04:34)
[4] NCC Recommendations to GA
     (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:05:40)
[2] NCC Recommendations to Names Council
     (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 10:32:53)
[1] NCC Recommendations to DNSO
     (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 10:27:34)

> input has been received from your constituencies.

The concerns presented be members were all about
the unbalanced constituency structure within the DNSO.

[1] NCC Recommendations to DNSO
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 10:27:34)
[2: Draft] NCC Recommendations to Names Council
YJ Park (Tue Oct 03 2000 - 20:16:17)
[2] NCC Recommendations to Names Council
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 10:32:53)
[3] NCC Recommendations to Constituencies in general
Vany Martinez (Mon Oct 02 2000 - 01:47:12)
Vany Martinez (Mon Oct 02 2000 - 01:25:45)
Jeff Williams (Sun Oct 01 2000 - 11:48:26)
James Love (Sun Oct 01 2000 - 05:13:58)
Kent Crispin (Sun Oct 01 2000 - 02:57:50)
James Love (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:36:45)
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:23:58)
James Love (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:42)
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:04:34)
[4] NCC Recommendations to GA
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:05:40)
[5] NCC Recommendations to Working Groups
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:06:59)
[6] NCC Recommendations to Secretariat and the rest.
YJ Park (Sat Sep 30 2000 - 11:09:44)

The following DNSO Review discussion among NCC was held
during MdR constituency meeting where the motion that the Review
Working Group should be set up within the DNSO was made by
Milton Mueller and got supports from members. Due to a series of
discussions and lack of time, we could not cast votes on it yet formally.

Rather, it was proposed by myself that I am going to present this motion
as formal NCC position at the next day NC meeting, which was accpeted.

Reference:
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/subject.html
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0026.html
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0027.html
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0029.html
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0028.html
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0031.html
http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/2000911/0030.html

YJ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Theresa Swinehart" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
To: "'names council'" <council@dnso.org>; <nc-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 7:47 AM
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.
>
>
>
>