[nc-review] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

==========================================
2001.1.15 Report of ICANN DNSO Working Group Review
==========================================

To     : Review Task Force/ Names Council
Cc     : Names Council of Domain Names Supporting Organization
           The Board of Directors, ICANN
From : YJ Park, Working Group Review Chair
           Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
Date  : 2001. 1. 15. Monday

Appreciating Names Council collegues who have agreed to form Working
Group Review on December 19 during NC teleconferece after almost five
months' discussion on DNSO Review, I would like to extend my hearty
gratitude for proactive cooperation especially to current NC Chair,
Ken Stubbs, new NC Chair-designate, Philip Sheppard, NC Review Task
Force Chair, Theresa Swinehart and Vice President of ICANN, Louis Tuton
who sent Press Release to "icann-announce" list (4900+ recipients) and
various relevant lists in the DNSO on Dec 22 and Dec 23.

Even though I have been designated as Chair of WG Review, there are many
folks whose credit should be recognized in forming WG Review. First, GA
Chair,
Roberto Gaetano, as one of Review TF members, who has consistantly brought
this issue to both Review TF and GA since Yokohama meeting, Elisabeth
Porteneuv,
initially as DNSO Secretariat and later as NC member of Review TF, Peter de
Blanc, Dany Vandromme who have supported this group until this group was
formed.

For the last, I owe gratefulness to Working Group Review members who have
traded off between their willingness to review DNSO with sincerity and their
Christmas Holiday and New Year Holiday due to pressed time given by NC's
decision. Therefore, Working Group Review could have only 24 working days
(From Dec. 23 to Jan 15) including Christmas and New Year Day. Especially,
those who have devoted themselves to rendering WG Review move forward
such as Joop Teernstra, Review WG Co-Chair Election Administrator, Greg
Burton, David Farrar, Jefsey Morfin and Sotiris Sotiropoulos who have run
for this election.

This is Working Group Review's status report as of Jaunary 15th as requested
by NC on 2000. Dec. NC's teleconference. The full Working Group's report
is going to be submitted on February 20 which is awaiting NC's another
friendly
decision this coming January's teleconference on 24th.

Therefore, it would be great chance for Names Council to invite newly
elected
WG Review Co-Chair, Greg Burton, to NC's January teleconference to listen
to its further schedule and plan for Feb. 20's report during its topic.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Content

1. Summary

    1. 1. Working Group Review's History
    1. 2. Issues to be Addressed
    1. 3. WG Review's Working Day-Extention Requested
    1. 4. Ongoing Intensive Discussion

2. Is DNSO Well-Formed, Well-Functioned?

    2. 1. What is the Role of DNSO?
    2. 2. DNSO Needs Reformation.
    2. 3. Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
    2. 4. New Constituency
    2. 5. Consensus, is measurable?
    2. 6. The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say

3. Proposal to Names Council's Review Task Force

    3. 1. To Set Up Procedure within the Task Force is Urgent.
    3. 2. Consensus-Building Process among Review TF is also Needed.
    3. 3. Review TF's Position is to Encompass WG Review's Consensus.

4. Proposal to Names Council

    4. 1. NC, Is it Consensus-Building Lubricant or Blockage?
    4. 2. To Extend WG Review's Working Days
    4. 3. Specified DNSO WG-Reviews are to be Formed.
        - DNSO without Constituency Proposal
        - DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
        - DNSO Budget Proposal

5. Outlook of Review WG from now on

    5. 1. Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
    5. 2. First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
    5. 3. Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting

---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Summary

1. 1. Review WG's History

The whole picture is well-described in [Appendix 17] provided by
DNSO secretariat as of January 14. Therefore, Review WG's progress
delineates its path from Dec 23 to date. Please, refer to [Appendix 10].

1. 2. Issues to be Addressed

In proceeding this kind of consensus-building process through a working
group model among those who have different background including
different level of understanding on the issues, different mother tongue,
different culture which finally lead to different way of communication
shows how challanging it is to achieve "consensus" after hammering out
its cons and pros.

Firstly, the qualification or role of WG Chair, consensus-training proposal
has been addressed in the group which has been stressed to manage 60
or so messages a day which made them feel they are in the middle of the
wilderness and this can be a valuable issue people have to look into with
seriousness not to repeat further regrets. This concern is well-noted in
[Appendix 20] and [Appendix 21].

However, as untrained and uneducated on consensus-building process
and non-native English speaker, being DNSO Review WG chair reminds
me how ICANN can implement its true-sense "geographycal diversity".
It is a pity to witness such concept used to strengthen its own legitimacy.

Secondly, WG's legitimacy or mandate should be set with firmness along
with mutual trust between NC and WG. Out of lack of such trust, many
WG members from time to time go back to cynical nihilism which drives
them to form another faction in the group, which distracted the group's
whole effort to fumble through the goal in vain.

Thirdly, the willingness to cooperate or achieve is far most important.
Even though there is well-articulated rules are presented, if people don't
respect them, it is out of use. Therefore, community oversight can be
its initial alternative to redress such intentional destruction just like
primitive age, which is to be developed in the form of cyberlaw.

1. 3. WG Review's Working Day-Extention Requested

What is the purpose of creating DNSO WG Review? WG members are
supposed to present their own recommendation or position paper after
going through its own independent consensus-building process which
can be a criteria NC can refer to in its recommendation to the Board.

WG Review has kicked off since Dec 23rd and listed up various issues
which should be more specified and needs focal point from now on.
WG Review just passed by its first stage by struggling from issue finding.

From now until Feb. 20 will be very challenging schedule for WG
Review to come up with measurable consensus position to the NC. It is
still very difficult to figure out why the whole process of DNSO review
should be wrapped up until Melbourne meeting.

It is appropriate for every process in the DNSO including even working
group to be reviewed regularly by people not by any clique inside DNSO.
Otherwise, one-shot window display review will smear itself at the end.

1. 4. Ongoing Intensive Discussion

With WG Review's own chair elected by WG members, a full list of
issues accompanied by visible poll result, WG Review is expected
to present its report to the NC on Feb 20.

---------------------------------------------------------------
2. Is DNSO Well-Formed, Well-Functioned?

2. 1. What is the Role of DNSO?

After 20 months' DNSO Testbed since Berlin ICANN meeting in 1999 May,
many people have been wondering what is the role of DNSO in the ICANN?
There have been five Working Group processes which have made WG members
feel useless in the consensus building process and demotivated by the fact
that Name Council is not ready to perform its designated responsibilities
described in the ICANN bylaws.

This deep dissappointment has been well expressed by one of former
WG Chairs, Jonathan Weinberg's report.[Appendix 2]

2. 2. DNSO Needs Reformation.

NC should pay attention to the poll result done by WG Review that 97 %
people responded YES. [Appendix 1] Some including one of At-Large Board
Director, Karl Auerbach recommend to eliminate "Constituency" structure
itself, which has not been working out in the DNSO.[Appendix 4]

However, WG Review has to make various approaches to current DNSO structure
due to the NCRTF's questionare which has forced WG members to answer to the
questions and to make WG members face the current issues which can be solved
by Clean Sheet approach from WG members' perspective.

Therefore, as some complained, to discuss almost more than 15 different
topics at the same time have caused WG members lots of confusion and missing
focal point from time to time, which I feel sorry for as designated Chair of
WG Review by NC.

2. 3. Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?

Many point out that the current constituency structure is imbalanced. This
concern is well noted in Milton Mueller's note # 2 [Appendix 6]. To heal
this imbalance, WG members suggested several constituency models such as
IDNH/O or Small Business Constituency, or TM owners Constituency etc.

2. 4. New Constituency

The most visible and audible demand from WG Review apart from "Drop the
Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners" in
the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning. There have been
counterargument that individuals can be represented through At-Large which
will result in duplicated representation in the ICANN.

However, Karl Auerbach's comment on this issue has some valid points, too.

    "If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain
     name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies they
     too would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric of
     that logic, represented via the at-large."

In addition to such requests, from its early stage WG members including Bret
Fausset, the current WG D Chair together with Theresa Swinehart, discussed
the formal procedure to set up new constituencies. Here is Bret Fausset's
message which emphasized on setting up due procedure for new constituencies
with formality. [Appendix 7]

2. 5. Consensus Is Measurable in the Decision-Making Process?

And then some may ask how people are sure of such demand can be called
"consensus" which needs proper action by Names Council and finally Board.
What does "rough consensus" mean by exactly?

Therefore, WG members decided to make analysis on "Consensus" in itself
whose result is expected to be out in their first report on Feb. 20.

2. 6. The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say

This issue sounds hot potato which was not directly mentioned in the
questionaire and was not still included specific issues of WG members' own
list. However, this is going to be undetachable issue whenever Names
Council discusses DNSO Budget and possibly ICANN Budget.

Therefore, it would be also valuable for WG members to come up with workable
financial solution after their first issue-cracking stage. Regarding its
methodolgy in Budget process, the necessity of more planned, more
transparent and more detailed document is well-described in registrar.com's
position paper. [Appendix 9]

3. Proposal to Review Task Force

3. 1. To Set Up Procedure within the Task Force is Urgent.

As member of Review TF, the decison or request of Review TF comes
in the name of Review TF from Chair prior to the consultation with
members of Review TF reminds this group that we need procrdure in place,
first. Otherwise, this group can get nowhere. To do that end, WG D is to
present its final report to the NC as soon as possible.

To operate this premature decision-making process in the NC without its
well-established set of rules might cause more serious malpractice.
Therefore, to propose a working model to the NC is more important than
to present the recommendations on DNSO Review to the Board at this
juncture.

3. 2. Consensus-Building Process Among Review TF is also Needed.

As soon as WG Review report is delivered to Review TF(on Feb. 20),
Review TF members are expected to participate in Review TF's report which
should outline TF members' consensus. To that end, Chair is expected to
make every effort in consulting with every member of Review TF since this is
small group composed of seven NC representatives from each constituency,
GA Chair and several observers.

Therefore, it is reasonable for Review TF to publish its interim report to
the Board when WG Review group can provide its position paper.
Furthermore, to make the Review TF report more agreeable, Review TF
is to have a teleconference to reach its own consensus before its
finalization.

3. 3. Review TF's Position is to Encompass WG Review's Consensus.

Review TF welcomes any input from both inside and outside DNSO.
However, not to be misled by any interest group, it is to have a session
to validate each constituency's position paper or contribution paper
by members of Review TF.

Every constituency paper is needed to show how many members
have participated in DNSO Review discussion through its own mailing
list and and have voted on that matter together with the number of vote
result. Otherwise, it is difficult to be viewed as constituency position.

When Review TF report is out, the report should be vetted by members
of Review TF. Otherwise, it cannot be recognized as Review TF report.
It is an individual's position paper.

4. Proposal to Names Council

4. 1. NC, whether it is Consensus-Building Lubricant or not?

Even though it has been difficult to define what "consensus" is, this group
has debated the role of NC in the consensus-building process. As shown in
[Appendix 19], NC is seen as constituted is an unnecessary structural
impediment to consensus. On the other hand, some parties still give weights
to NC that NC should manage the consensus process.[Appendix 3]

4. 2. To Extend WG Review's Working Days

Despite that fact that  NC itself didn't self-clarify what NC's role should
be in this consensus-building process, NC as Consensus-Catalyst as it
has been presumed in the DNSO, people expect NC is ready to reconsider
extending Review WG's working days which has been requested by WG
members through many channels.

Without substantial consensus-building process efforts before NC, NC's
recommendation to the Board is going to be empty voices which have no
legitimacy nor mandate.

Please, let WG Review go on its unfinished mission.

4. 3. Specified DNSO Review-WGs are to be Formed.

As Kent Crispin pointed out clarity in his DNSO Review Comment,
the most effective way of WG operation is to let WG be as focused as
possible. Therefore, DNSO Review WG is recommened to be divided
into three groups each of which is supposed to come up with its own
recommendation to the NC.

        - DNSO without Constituency Proposal
        - DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
        - DNSO Budget Proposal

5. Outlook of Review WG from now on

5. 1. Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15

========================================
Feb 9 - 14.  Review WG Position Paper Submission
Feb 14 - 19 Review WG Position Paper Comment Period.
Feb 20         Review WG Position Paper Delivered to NC
========================================

5. 2. First WG Review's Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting

Call by WG Co-Chair, Greg Burton.
Date: March. 9, Friday or 10, Saturday

5. 3. Second WG Review's Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting

Call by WG Co-Chair, Greg Burton.
Date: June [TBD]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendices

[Appendix 1] Various Poll Result Surveyed by Review WGs
[Appendix 2] Jonathan Weinberg's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 3] Kent Crispin's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 4] Karl Auerbach's Comment on Constituency
[Apeendix 5] Joanna Lane's Proposal of IDNH Membership Criteria
[Appendix 6] Milton Mueller's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 7] Bret Fausset's Proposal to Create New Constituecny Procedure
[Appendix 8] Adam Peake's Report on NCC's Outreach Status
[Appendix 9] registrar.com's Position on DNSO Quality
[Appendix 10] Review WG's Chronology from Dec 23 through Jan. 15
[Appendix 11] Review WG's Members and its Details
[Appendix 12] Review WG's Co-Chair Election Details
[Appendix 13] List of Issues
                  I.   Review WG's Charter Finalization
                  II.  Ten Topics by NCRTF and Five Issues by Review WG
                  III. Rod Dixon's Issue List Suggested
[Appendix 14] Statistics on Email list
[Appendix 15] Dany Younger's "Procedure to Establish Consensus"
[Appendix 16] Joop Teernstra's Comment on At-Large and Individual
                       Domain Name Owners constituency
[Appendix 17] DNSO Working Group Review - History in the Making
                       (DNSO Secretariat Provided.)
[Appendix 18] Eric's Procedure for Posting to the List
[Appendix 19] Greg Burton's Comment on "NC and Consensus"
[Appendix 20] Kent Crispin's Comments on Working Groups
[Appendix 21] Kent Crispin's Comment on WG-Review
[Appendix 22] Greg Burton's Preliminary Report(I) on Consensus
[Appendix 23] Greg Burton's Preliminary Report(II) -
                        3. Constituencies and 4. GA
===============================================
                                            [End of Message]