IPC comments recieved. FW: [nc-review] NC Review 2.0 Circulation forComment.

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Noticed that this didn't get on the task force review list. sorry.

-----Original Message-----
From: aus der Muhlen, Axel [mailto:Axel_ausderMuhlen@mpaa.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:32 PM
To: 'Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com'
Subject: RE: [nc-review] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.
Importance: High




Theresa:

On behalf of the IPC, I am forwarding to you comments on the DNSO Review 2.0
questionnaire that were provided to me by the American Intellectual Property
Law Association (AIPLA) and two individual IPC members.

All commentators felt that the time to comment was too short, particularly
in view of the length of the questionnaire, complexities of the issues
addressed in the questionnaire, and the timing of the survey (applications
for new TLDs, etc.).    The commentators would have given more thorough
responses if they had been given more time to respond to the questionnaire.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Axel



1.    Comments from a member of INTA

My comments are listed below. Please note that these are my personal

comments and do not reflect the position of INTA or the association's DNS

Governance Subcommittee.

IV. DNSO Responsibilities

· To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A

(WG-A), B (new TLD WGs B&C) and C (Elections)?

Ans: I believe that WG-A fulfilled its mission. However, I was bothered

somewhat by the chaos that followed in Santiago and shortly thereafter

concerning the fine details of the UDRP. Regarding WGs B&C, I thought that

the lack of clear procedures for WGs made the process chaotic and difficult

for the chairs to operate. As for the election of the DNSO Board members, I

thought that the process was fair, but that the first election of three

members was taxing on our Names Council representatives. The second

election, which turned out to be the re-election of Jonathan Cohen, was much

improved, as only one seat was being contested.

· Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate

consensus of the affected stakeholders? Have the viewpoints of all

stakeholders been considered?

Ans: I think that overall, the policies recommended by the DNSO have

represented an adequate consensus. From my discussions with the Names

Council members and the WG chairs, I find that all views are being

considered and that there is a real effort to craft statements that reflect

the views of those who are participating in the process.

· 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?

Ans: I have found the recommendations of the DNSO to be somewhat lacking in

detail. However, I believe that a more structured procedure for the WGs

will allow for greater specificity and more detailed recommendations.

· To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies,

have they received the support of those being asked to implement them?

Ans: Difficult question to answer, but I would point out that the number of

people involved in the ICANN process continues to grow. To me, this

suggests that people are interested in ICANN and the role it has and will

continue to play in the growth of the Internet.

· Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA)

and the relationship among them well defined?

Ans: I believe that the responsibilities and relationship between the NC

and the Constituencies are well defined. In particular, the IPC's members

regularly communicated with our NC reps. However, the responsibilities of

the GA remain a mystery to me. Other than an open mike complaint session

about the evils of ICANN and the IP community, I have seen no practical

benefits coming from the GA.

· 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?

Ans: Clearly, what is needed, are structured rules for debate.



V. Structure

A. Names Council

· Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to steer and

manage the DNSO consensus process, or can this be improved?

Ans: The NC is doing the best it can without any clear rules for debate or

for managing its WGs. What it needs to have is more structure. If it has

that, then the recommendations it produces will be more defined and reflect

the points of view of all stakeholders.

· What are the proper expectations for the Names Council, and what is

its proper role in relation to the DNSO and the ICANN Board?

Ans: In my opinion, the role of the NC should be to coordinate the

formulation of recommendations that should eventually find their way to 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?

Ans: Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the NC's biggest problem -- lack of rules and

structure.

· How can the NC enhance the level of technical or other expertise

employed in the consensus-development process?

Ans: Limit the number of people in a WG to three representatives from each

constituency.

· How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed

management of ICANN?

Ans: I believe that the NC is itself still grasping with many of its own

organizational issues and should therefore have a limited role in the

detailed management of ICANN.

· Does the NC manage the policy-development process so that

recommendations are reached in a timely manner?

Ans: No. Again, this is due to a lack of structure and rules for policy

formulation.

· 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?

Ans: The NC could do a better job in all of these areas if it had, for

example, rules for debate, including time limits, # of amendments, and

perhaps some authority for the chair to set an agenda.

B. Constituencies

I'm getting tired of answering each individual question, so let me just give

you my general thoughts regarding the constituency system.

I think that the IPC is working quite well. My compliments to Mike and

Steve for keeping us on course and to Caroline and the others on the NC for

representing us. As far as the relationship between the NC reps. and their

constituencies, I think that the NC reps. should, as ours do, work with

their constituencies and reflect the views of the members. As for general

procedure, I think that if an NC rep. misses a prescribed number of

meetings, the constituency should remove that individual and elect someone

else to the position.

C. The GA

In my opinion, the GA is a mess. I have attended almost all of the ICANN

meetings and still cannot figure out what the GA is supposed to do. It

needs rules, an effective chair, and a defined purpose.

That's all from my end. Please let me know if you need more.



2.    Comments from an IPC Officer

I am about to leave for Hong Kong so I have little time to comment in depth
on the very detailed questionnaire circulated by the DNSO Review Committee.
However here are a few highly personal comments:

As far as I am concerned the DNSO is working as well as can be expected. It
is trying very hard to reach out to its members, but these are many and they
are widely dispersed around the globe. They also have very different views
on a single subject. Invariably therefore it is those with the strongest
(and often the most extreme) views whose voice is heard, and these tend to
be those with plenty of time, i.e. 'without a proper day job'.

I also feel extrenmely strongly that we are not allowed sufficient time to
give proper thought or consideration to subjects on which we are consulted.
This particular exercise is a perfect example. I saw the questions towards
the end of last week. Most of the IP Constituency saw them for the first
time yesterday, but we are being asked to comment on this long, complex and
multi-facetted document by next Monday. It is not good enough.

I would be against introducing any new constituencies at the present time. A
case has certainly not been made out for a constituency of individuals. It
is in any case a contradiction in terms. By definition an individual has
his/her own views so how can 3 NC representatives properly represent the
views of a bunch of individuals? However if this does go ahead (and I see
this whole consultation exercise as a cloak for doing so) then it should be
balanced by a new constituency for saner minds, such as for example by
reducing the size of the Business constituency into a less unwieldy group.
It could perhaps be split into USA and the Rest of the World.

My final point is that I think the General Assembly is ineffective. No one
seems to have sat down and worked out what its constitution should be, what
it is supposed to do and how it will do it. Much more thought needs to be
devoted to this, instead of fatuous navel-gazing exercises like the present.

Questionnaire.doc