Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

> Is it even possible, for example, for detailed policy to be developed in large
> groups?

And, framed another way, what level of detail should WGs and the NC look to
include in their policy recommendations? Here's an example of what I mean...

The four paragraphs on new gTLDs, containing the most general of policy
statements, that the NC sent to the ICANN Board on April 19, 2000:

   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/announce/Arc00/msg00077.html

prompted a public comment period at the Board level

   http://forum.icann.org/newtlds/

which then exploded into:

  * complex registry and sponsorship applications
    http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-applications-15aug00.htm

  * a separate instruction document on how and whether to
    complete the application
    http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-tld-application-instructions-15aug00.htm

  * a statement of criteria for assessing new gTLD applications
    http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-criteria-15aug00.htm

  * and a 73 question FAQ for specific questions and responses
    http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-faqs.htm

You can view this in a couple of ways. You could say that this is the way
it's supposed to work, with the DNSO generating broad statements of policy,
with implementation details fleshed out by ICANN's full-time staff. You
could also view this as an abdication of responsibility by the DNSO, which
placed an unnecessary burden on ICANN's limited staff and resources.

The detail in the documents produced by Staff were very helpful to the
applicants. Could such documents have been produced at the DNSO level?
Somehow I doubt it, but I wonder whether they *should* have been. (I believe
this would necessitate having Staff at the DNSO level, which I'm not sure is
a good idea.)

Is the level of detail that the NC produced in its April 19, 2000 resolution
the level of detail that the DNSO WGs and the NC should aspire to? If so, I
think it dramatically changes the nature of what we're trying to do.

I suspect that had the members of WG-C (on new gTLDs) known the level of
detail that would ultimately emerge as the end-product of their efforts,
their dialogue during the discussions would have been much different.

In a similar vein, if a high level overview of general statements of
principle is the goal for work product, then I would think we should work
here for general statements such as:

"Individual Domain Name Registrants should be represented formally in the
structure of the DNSO."  - or -  "The DNSO should strive for balance in its
structure, so that all interests are represented in equal measure, to the
greatest extent possible."

What level of detail do people think we should aspire to? And what can we
realistically accomplish?

           -- Bret