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

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Karl's statement...

 "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."

Is very much to the point, and I agree with it. Certainly the report/brief
to the Board on new TLD's was very minimal.

Given that minimal output, the Board could only conclude that there were no
major issues here, and thus, turned the matter over to the ICANN staff to
implement.

Had I been on the names council at the time, I would have suggested, perhaps
a 15 to 20 page brief, including how many new GTLDs, a proposed method for
soliciting and selecting applicants, qualification and review criteria,
economic impact on existing structures, etc.

In other words, when, In business, I sit on Boards of corporations and get
"briefed" from the Exec committee of those corporations, you'd better
believe those briefings are complete.

We, as the DNSO and the NC need to provide substantive information and
suggested actions to the board, presumabely based on consensus of our
constituencies... that is our mandate.

I don't know exactly how to put that into a resolution- since we should
already be doing it.

Meanwhile, I'd suggest we come up with some plan to "tune" the DNSO to
provide for more "stakeholder" representation, without throwing away the
whole system.

I believe it's worth a try...

Peter de Blanc



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 7:40 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC



> 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--