RE: [nc-review] DNSO review version 3.0 comment - recommendation

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

YJ,

Thank you for your comments. In reading this comment I unfortunately don't
understand where it is supposed to go in the report, i.e., what section it's
refering to, or exactly what context it is in. You refer to 'recommendation
should be filled'.. what recommendation? But there's also a reference to a
'further recommendation' - is it a new one? or is it to be included in one?
And what context is it in? The task force needs to understand the comment.

Because we've received this comment so late and clarification is necessary
I'll footnote it in the report, and you can then clarify it during the ICANN
public comment process.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of YJ Park (MINC)
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 10:28 PM
> To: nc-review@dnso.org
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-review] DNSO review version 3.0 comment - recommendation
>
>
> This message may be redelivered later through my other account
> which couldn't be delivered for more than 12 hours so far.
> ===========================================
>
> Hello Review TF members,
>
> The version 3.0 has 9 different suggestions for further recommendation.
> In accomplishing this process, I want to add another suggestion to this.
>
> ==============================================
> To have full range of true DNSO review, the recommendation should
> be filled up by the voluntary experts who have been involved with the
> DNSO for more than a year i.e. either participation in a constituency
> or GA or WG. The number of volunteers should be limited to 10 for
> its efficient communication or practical works. If the number is over 10,
> the decision on who should be on the voluntary committee will be made
> under the guidance by Names Coucil.
>
> The first priority is recommended to go to those who have been
> contributing to Review-WG since Dec. 23 2000.
> ===============================================
> Thank you,
> YJ
>
> [In addition to issues identified in this report for specific
> improvements,
> a study should occur on the overall DNSO discussion process, including how
> to encourage participation, Constituency reporting, consensus building at
> all levels of the DNSO, and communication between the DNSO, ICANN Board,
> Staff. Additionally, the study should determine functional methods for
> including substantive expertise for issues the DNSO addresses]
>
> [Suggestion:. Study of constituency structures, and charters, and
> extent to
> which constituencies overlap, with emphasis on identifying any
> overlap, and
> concrete steps to improve representation, participation]
>
> [Suggestion: recommendation to establish a study to identify specific core
> issues that need to be addressed in order to determine if and how to
> establish an individual domain name holder’s constituency. Included in the
> recommendations provisions to ensure an adequate level of
> participation and
> representative of the individual domain name holders. Clearly define the
> membership, which must have broad and international representation.
> Different models should be looked at to see how best to ensure
> this, such as
> provisional recognition for membership.]
>
> [Suggestion: Undertake study to reevaluate role of the General Assembly
> within the DNSO, including assessing its role if an Individual Domain Name
> Holders Constituency is further explored. Study should look at different
> models and roles the GA could have, how to increase participation and
> authority, with clearly defined membership, with broad and international
> representation]
>
> [Suggestion: Establish short-term study to identify and implement
> improvements for the consensus/discussion in the DNSO currently existing
> under Working Groups. Study should explore such options as whether working
> groups members should submit papers to focus discussion, there should be
> smaller working groups, such as task forces, as an alternative to the
> current working group structure, and how to enhance the level of technical
> or other expertise employed in the consensus-development process. Study
> should include outcome of Working Group D]
>
> [Suggestion: Request NC to identify steps and mechanisms for the
> NC members
> to effectively use their time, encourage greater participation, develop
> clear mandates and procedures, so that representatives focus is on
> substantive issues, and matters of DNSO work.  Included should be steps to
> improve communication with ICANN Board members and better understanding of
> how the DNSO can better fulfill it’s responsibilities within the ICANN
> structure]
>
> [Suggestion – Establish secure mechanisms for the DNSO secretariat/staff.]
>
> [Suggestion: Establish recommendations, including cost assessment and cost
> coverage, to provide for translations to increase international
> accessibility. Results of assessment should be posted for public comment,
> including what languages would be translated, and cost of translations for
> professional or alternative translation services.]
>
> [Suggestion: identify specific action items, including time line, to
> facilitate increased levels of participation.]
> =========================================
>                         [End of Recommendation]
>
>
>