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

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@CaveBear.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 1:11 PM
> 
> > 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.

I agree. However, the current structure limits the DNSO exactly to
coordination. DNSO can only "recommend" to the BoD and the DNSO NC isn't
responsive to the DNSO GA at all.

> > 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.

I disagree, just because some don't have either the training or the desire
to understand what a stakeholder is strictly defined to be, doen't mean that
the language is no good. "Stakeholders" are precisely those that are
interested. It is that some, within the DNSO and the  ICANN, have
jerrymandered "constituancies" and have then called *those* the only visible
stakeholders. We all know that there are some GLARING holes in that
stakeholder model and that they were left there intentionally and we even
know what those intentions were. Whats more, some of us have suspected that,
since the paris-draft DNSO proposal compromise. Just because that language
was used, dishonestly, to start the initial DNSO railroad, doen't mean that
it is not usable now. In its honest application, it is quite a powerful
tool.

> 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.

Agreed and this review is long over-due.


> > 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.

Since I am out-of-town, could you please send the actual body of MArk
Langston's text or attachemtn?

> > * 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, I know that this is what you originally proposed in th ORSC draft
<http://www.dnso.net/orsc-dnso.htm>

For those whom are interested, I have just provided the link. You can also
refer to <http://www.dnso.net>