Re: [wg-review] We are in the starting line......

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> 1. Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group
>
> The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
> the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural
> and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name
> Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a bottom-up
> policy coordination body.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have a bit of trouble with the limited powers implied by the word
"coordination".

The DNSO as a body is responsible not merely for "coordination" but also
for the *origination* of policy pertaining to DNS.  The initiative for
such policy might come from within the DNSO itself, by unsolicited input
from the net community, or by reference from the Board of Directors or a
question from another SO.


> The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
> the responses of DNSO stakeholders' and to vindicate that DNSO
> would be a structure that will include all of those who will be affected
> by the DNS of the future as well as the current Netizens.

We ought to dispense the concept of "stakeholders" - particularly as some
consider that concept to be one of the reasons why the DNSO is stumbling.
The DNS impacts everyone on the Internet.  That first sentence should be
reworded to begin "The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to
evaluate the responses of interested persons" ...


> 2. Authority - How this WG has been proposed and created.
>
> On July 14 the ICANN Board requested the Names Council
> to submit its report on DNSO review in its Yokohama meeting
> in July 2000. The report was supposed to be due on Oct. 13
> and it has been deferred.

I might also suggest that any body has an intrinsic power to examine its
own structures as long as that effort doesn't interfere with its primary
duties.

Thus, in my opinion, the DNSO has always had its own ability to initiate
self-review and to make recommendations for improvement.


> 3. Procedures and approaches
>
> Review Working Group will explore the concerns listed below
> by online discussion mostly and if it is needed this group will
> organize a face-to-face meeting before or after ICANN meeting.

At this point I'd like to inject a plea for semi-formalized processes,
along the lines of those suggested by Mark Langston, to keep this
discussion from going off into the weeds.



> * The DNSO constituency Structure : Examine the structure and
>    propose amendments that will ensure balanced representation
>    of all stakeholder interests in an open, and transparent process.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^
...
> In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for
> enhancing more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO
> and for ensuring all the stakeholders' voices should be HEARD.
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Again, that loaded word "stakeholders" - we ought not to pre-judge who has
a "stake" but rather let people decide for themselves whether they feel
that they have an interest they want to protect.  Rather than forcing
people into pre-conceived, and arbitrary "constituencies" we ought to
allow people to aggregate (and de-aggregate) into fluid coalitions.

To that end I'd suggest that the last sentence in the above quoted
paragraph should be:

 "In the long term, DNSO Review Committee will be responsible for
 creating a more trustworthy working environment in the DNSO, for
 ensuring that all who desire to fully participate in the DNSO may do so,
 and ensuring that the points of view and opinions of all who believe that
 they may be affected by DNSO decisions may be fairly heard and fairly
 considered."

		--karl--