[comments-review] Comment on Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process, Part 2

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Comment on Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process, Part 2

Due to substantial controversy over the charter and duties of WG-Review, 
I've prepared the following timeline and comments about the process of 
creating the working group. If there are any substantive omissions in this 
comment, available from the public record, I apologize and would like them 
included by reference. I believe this summary is accurate for the time from 
the NC meeting in November at Marina Del Rey to the creation of WG-Review 
on December 17, 2000.

The construction of this timeline was an interesting process in it's own 
right, and leads to the following comment:

"The task force reports that "This time-line was extended again to January 
15th in order to
accommodate the schedule of the DNSO Review Working Group." It would appear 
more accurate to add that the entire process was delayed for months by the 
failure of the Names Council to create WG-Review."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Names Council Scribe Notes - November 14, 2000
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400-2.html
            2.   Park: Need a WG to discuss DNSO review.
...
        F.   Chicoine: Need procedures so that if a NC member questions a 
decision made, we have appropriate documentation.
        G.   Park: Procedure was not clear to NC members. Need to be more 
clear in the future. Sometimes, the NC process perhaps gives too much power 
to the Chair; might need two chairs for the DNSO Review process.
        H.   Chicoine: Motion to make YJ the chair of a WG to address 
certain DNSO specific issues that were raised by YJ. Approved by show of hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: It appears that Ms Park is here referring to the WG originally to 
be created by the NC resolution and promised to the Board during Public 
Comments from the meetings in Yokohama. If that is the case, then the 
motion by Ms Chicoine would appear to create that WG. If Ms Chicoine was 
referring to other issues, exactly what the WG was to address is unclear.

Correspondence on the NC list indicates this lack of clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message from Erica Roberts - November 16, 2000
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00489.html
"I abstained from the vote appointing YJ as chair of ????because I was not 
clear what she was being asked to do"
...
"What is clear to me, is that the NC did not provide any clear terms of 
reference for whatever group it was that YJ is to chair."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: none required.

Discussion continued on the NC list for two weeks, with what appears to be 
support for the concept. Then,
-------------------------------------------------------
Post from "Michael Chicoine" November 29, 2000
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00535.html
"Clearly there is still confusion about my intentions about my motion in 
LA, and since I do not believe we had a meeting of the minds, I would like 
to withdraw it or present it for review and a revote at our next 
teleconference call."
---------------------------------------------------------
Comment: It is interesting that a passed motion could possibly be 
withdrawn. However, it is also clear that Ms Chicoine had no intention of 
creating the WG promised in Yokohama, and this request to withdraw the 
motion seems reasonable, considering the circumstances.

It appears that by early December, some form of working group was clearly 
planned:
------------------------------------
Post from Theresa Swinehart, December 4, 2000
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00543.html
"As you recall, due to the very limited responses received before the 
November meeting (including from only two constituencies), this is being 
recirculated to ensure input from all constituencies, general assembly, and 
the DNSO Review Working Group."
...
"The timeline is as follows. The NC Review Task Force must receive comments 
by January 10, 2001. PLEASE NOTE, while this extension of the DNSO review 
is necessary due to limited responses received...."
----------------------------------------
Comment: The Task Force Report incorrectly lists this date as January 15. 
It also appears that to that date, four and a half months have resulted in 
little input to the process.

Discussion on the NC list continues on the charter for the proposed WG 
through December 15, leading up to the NC teleconference of December 19. I 
am unable to locate any proposed changes or discussion of changes to the 
draft charter submitted by Ms Park prior to the teleconference.

At the teleconference of December 19, changes to the charter were made by 
the NC while creating WG-Review. On December 21, a press release announcing 
WG-Review was sent, announcing the group. While it appears that Ms Park was 
still expecting the working group as per the Yokohama NC resolution, 
WG-Review was created with a more limited scope. A discussion of this scope 
change and the problems that it caused will occur later.

The timeline to the above point is 5 months after the resolution to create 
a WG, as adopted by the NC in Yokohama. It appears that to that time, only 
three of the reponses referenced in the task force report had been received 
- GA comments, ISP comments, and gTLD comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:

Eleven documents or authors are identified as responses within the task 
force report. Some of these are referenced within the WG-Review preliminary 
report submitted by Ms Park, which included 24 documents as appendices. An 
analysis of these documents is beyond the scope of this comment, but it 
should be abundantly clear that WG-Review members contributed the bulk of 
material referenced by the task force, and did so in a three week period 
that included Christmas and New Year holidays.