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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> 1) What, in particular, are the results that are expected of the DNSO?
> In fact, it *has* produced several general policy documents, and if
> those are the expected output, then no, the DNSO is not paralyzed at
> all.

As one who does have the job of examining and passing on the output of the
DNSO - I expect well formed policy decisions, including analysis of the
competing views, and backed by procedures that give me confidence that all
parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.

Under that definition it is my view that the DNSO hasn't produced much, if
anything, that I, as a member of the Board of Directors, can use except
after the layering on of several bushels of caveats and limitations.


> 2) A related question: what are the metrics by which the output of the
> DNSO is to be judged, and who determines those metrics?

There may be many who judge - but there is one final evaluation that is
performed by the 19 people who comprise the ICANN Board of Directors.


> 3) Are expectations/metrics for the DNSO realistic?  Is it even
> possible, for example, for detailed policy to be developed in large
> groups?

If the expectations are unrealistic then we ought to repeal that section
of the ICANN bylaws that mandate that policy matters be brought to the
SO's for resolution.

As for large groups creating policy - the DNSO, including the GA, is
hardly a "large" group.

But large groups making policy isn't the DNSO's problem - Rather, the
problem is the converse - that it is small industry groups, often with
multiple representation, who have been creating much of what has been
emitted from the DNSO.

		--karl--