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

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Thank you YJ. To the best of my knowledge, this report has not been endorsed
by your group and so its credibility may come under question.   It would be
helpful if you could include:
* information on any votes taken;
* any other information which will indicate the level of support this report
has from your group;
*  information on the size, level of participation, and composition of your
group;
* information on who has produced and signed off on this report.

Regards,
erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>; <nc-review@dnso.org>; "Greg
Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
Cc: "vint cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>; <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; <ivanmc@akwan.com>;
<phil.davidson@bt.com>; <f.fitzsimmons@att.net>; <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>;
<mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>; <hans@icann.org>; "S. H. Kyong"
<shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>; <andy@ccc.de>; <junsec@wide.ad.jp>;
<quaynor@ghana.com>; <roberts@icann.org>; <helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de>;
<linda@icann.org>; <council@dnso.org>; "Alejandro Pisanty, CUAED + FQ, UNAM"
<apisan@servidor.unam.mx>; "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>; "Jonathan
Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I


> Hello Erica,
>
> > Is this supposed to be the final report of the WG?
>
> As you read, this is January 15th Report.
>
> Greg Burton, newly elected Co-Chair by WG-Review
> is supposed to come up with Feb. 20 Report.
>
> YJ
>
> > erica
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
> > To: <nc-review@dnso.org>
> > Cc: "vint cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>; <Amadeu@nominalia.com>;
> <ivanmc@akwan.com>;
> > <phil.davidson@bt.com>; <f.fitzsimmons@att.net>;
> <ken.fockler@sympatico.ca>;
> > <mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>; <hans@icann.org>; "S. H. Kyong"
> > <shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>; <andy@ccc.de>; <junsec@wide.ad.jp>;
> > <quaynor@ghana.com>; <roberts@icann.org>;
<helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de>;
> > <linda@icann.org>; <council@dnso.org>; "Alejandro Pisanty, CUAED + FQ,
> UNAM"
> > <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>; "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>;
"Jonathan
> > Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:23 AM
> > Subject: [council] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I
> >
> >
> > > ==========================================
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>