[comments-review] Recommendation

["Babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

At a time when Washington is actively investigating the ICANN Board's
procedures, or lack thereof, in the allocation of the new gTLDs, it is not
especially prudent for the DNSO's Review Task Force to be releasing a report
that concludes that all is essentially well in the DNSO (barring only a few
minor improvements that could be made).  Such a conclusion (with a meager
amount of supporting documentation) will only reinforce the public
perception that transparency and accountability are not truly in evidence,
and that a whitewash is at work; this will not serve the interests of the
Board.  I would recommend presenting a document that is much more
forthcoming with regard to the current deficiencies (a critical
self-assessment).
1. It should be admitted that during the first five months of the Board's
mandate to the Names Council to review the state of the DNSO, little was
accomplished beyond creating a questionnaire that generated only a few
responses... this is indicative of a problem.
2. It should be admitted that there are few established procedures in place
in the DNSO (although there are measures being taken to correct this
inadequacy).
3. It should be admitted that the Names Council has not managed to ensure
the timely completion of projects in its charge (the Business Plan being but
one example).
4. It should be admitted that Chairs have been left vacant (such as the GA
Chair) even though the Names Council is responsible for designating a Chair.
5. It should be admitted that in spite of the large number of postings on
the ICANN Public Forum site, the DNSO has done little to investigate
publicly raised issues such as domain name hoarding by Registrars, WHOIS
data/privacy concerns, the lack of an expired domain name policy, etc.
6. It should be admitted that efforts directed at Public Outreach have been
particularly weak (true outreach involves substantially more than merely
notifying your own members and posting a note on your own website).
7. It should be admitted that no provisions for the translation of Policy
Documents have as yet been made.
Finally, when Review Task Force suggestions are being offered, a true
document trail confirming consensus on such recommendations should be
clearly be in evidence.