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

["S. H. Kyong" <shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr>]

Dear YJ,

Congratulations on your 1001.1.15. Report! I have yet to read and
study the Report, but the fact that you were able to file such a
comprehensive report on the complex issue within a short time
given to you is a notable feat in itself. I hope to get back to you
with some substantive comments after I study the Report. In the
meantime, I hope you take some very well-deserved rest.

S.H. Kyong

"YJ Park (MINC)" wrote:

> ==========================================
> 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]
begin:vcard 
n:Kyong;S. H.
tel;fax:+82-31-705-3377
tel;home:+82-31-704-3661
tel;work:+82-2-958-3659
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr
fn:S. H. Kyong
end:vcard