[comments-review] Comments on the DNSO Review report version 2.

[Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>]

Comments on the DNSO Review report version 2.


General observation: The lack of self-criticism and self-appraisal by
constituencies and Names Council itself is worrying. What has NC done
since July 14, 2000 when Pindar Wong asked the NC to begin a review to
January 15 when task force closed the comment period to justify this
complacency?



I. Background and Overview


I strongly agree with Greg Burton's comments:


<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00008.html>


and
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00009.html>


Burton describes events largely as I remember them: the expectation that
there would be a Working Group established and that such a Working Group
would be the only appropriate way to conduct the DNSO review.



III. Issues Identified / B. Constituencies.


Regarding representation constituencies and whether constituencies
adequately represent all stakeholders.


Constituencies are required to operate in and open, fair and transparent
manner.  ICANN and the DNSO functions on principles of bottom-up
organization and seeking consensus. However, as few of the
constituencies publish membership lists or have public mailing lists, it
is impossible to judge whether they are representative or not.


In cases where member lists are available it is clear that some
constituencies fail to adequately represent stakeholders in all regions,
some fail to represent certain classes of stakeholder (particularly
smaller entities.)  Some seem to have representative structures that
favor large organizations or associations (while large international
associations should of course be represented in constituencies, they are
not organized on bottom up policy making principles and should not be
permitted to dominate any constituency.)


It is ironic that the only constituency that does operate in a fully
transparent manner suffers from server issues management problems
(hopefully not an indication of what is being hidden from view by other
constituencies.)


Example of steps that might be recommended in this section:



Solutions:


The Names Council should require all constituencies to conduct ongoing
outreach (membership should been seen to be growing --where appropriate,
some constituencies are naturally limited.) Constituencies should be
required to make continuous efforts to improving geographic diversity.
The Names Council should monitor charters to ensure they are inclusive
of all stakeholders and that all voices can be heard in constituency
processes. All mailing lists on which significant work of the
constituency is conducted should be publicly archived.  A program of
self reporting on the status of the constituency, perhaps scheduled
around ICANN's physical meetings, would be an appropriate means of
informing the Names Council and other constituencies on such issues.


Basic constituency requirements: -Charter creating an organizational
structure that is inclusive of all stakeholders; -Published membership
records, including information about representation by geographic region
(members with full voting rights from all 5 regions should be mandatory
for all constituencies); -Clearly identified issues management processes
that ensure all stakeholders have a realistic opportunity to contribute
equally and effectively; -Public archives should be provided of all
mailing lists on which significant work of the constituency is
undertaken.


D. General Assembly The text recognizes that the GA is the place where
the work of the DNSO should be conducted, but looses track of this very
significant point when confusing the GA with any possible constituency
for individual domain name holders.  Note, anyone from any constituency
or anyone with an Internet connection may participate in the GA. A
constituency for individuals can only be for those who own/hold domain
names. GA/IDNO are not one and the same: they are distinct as the IPC,
ISPC or any other constituency from the purpose of the GA.


E. Working Groups Recommendation seems to have an internal conflict: it
suggests procedures similar to the IETF model then goes on to suggest
micro management of those procedures.


Strongly suggest that the Names Council attempt (either itself or
through some public process) to identify the principles and criteria it
sees in managing the consensus building process.  It may be a mistake to
begin by looking at the IETF which has developed to "manage" engineering
and technical functions rather than policy.


Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.


Adam Peake
GLOCOM  Tokyo
<http://www.glocom.org> <http://www.glocom.ac.jp>


(member of the non commercial constituency speaking very much for
myself.)