[wg-review] 11 [IDNH] individual domain name owners, Report requested by Members of the WG-Review

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

<The timetable is not driven in isolation by the NC but in order to comply
meaningfully with a Board request to allow then to react to an NC Review
report at their Melbourne meeting in March.>
<The process is:
- NCRTF writes a survey and outreaches
- That outreach includes this WG
- the NCRTF listens to all input and produces a report
- there is a comment period for that report
- the report is finalized and goes to the Board in advance of Melbourne.

Philip,
With the greatest respect, the deadline issue was the first thing addressed
by this group before the holiday and it was agreed then unanimously that Jan
15th was unrealistic (as you are now fully appreciating). I have yet to hear
a reason why this cannot be extended until Feb 20th and so far as I am
aware, we are waiting for a formal response to that proposal through the
Chair, or are you meaning to say that a decision has been made unilaterally
and the answer is a firm no? If so, who made the decision and why? As you
can see, there are some valid concerns about present working conditions.


<It would therefore be great if opinion on the key questions raised in the
NCRTFQ (and categorised as YJ proposed) could be voiced. I trust we can all
see the irony in arguing over the process in a process intended to improve
the process.>


I do not profess to be an expert in all aspects of ICANN's functions, but I
do understand that the existing DNSO has little or no credibility with the
BoD and that as a result, some members naturally wanted to question and
debate all aspects of its role. I do not disagree that stated terms of
reference (as categorized by YJ) have been sidelined from time to time in
the last week, but I can't agree with you that the group has been largely
unfocused or focused inappropriately during all of that time.

There has been an ongoing straw poll to facilitate feedback on gaining a
sense of where consensus may lie regarding the terms of reference,  which
has been very much on topic. Also, it was not an @Large members, but a Board
Member who first chose not to address the listed topics, as it was felt that
time taken to debate whether or not the existing constituency structure
could function in a well balanced way at all and maybe ought to be
disbanded, could well have greater long term benefits than limiting review
topics as you now insist we must. IMO that was entirely appropriate use of
time at that moment and has constructively lead to further work to identify
and short-list DNSO problems.

Added to this, two separate topics were identified as vital for inclusion in
the review topics and by due process were formerly added to the original 10
topics, which now stands at 12. These cannot now be dismissed out of hand
for reasons of time. It would simply not be equitable.

Further detailed discussion about items # 11. IDNH and item# 12. sTLDs
(prior to your joining this group) have elicited both supporting and
opposing positions (as evidenced in the full list archive) and work is now
well underway to develop those proposals in more detail. However, it will be
necessary for further "appropriate" comments to be made on these by members,
obviously including interested @Large members who may be directly affected
by the function of an IDNH constituency within DNSO. Since membership will
largely be drawn for that category from @Large, one could say it would be
inappropriate for Constituency members to comment on that, but I would not
take such an entrenched position.

In conclusion, in order for this wg-review to elicit feedback from a
"representative sample" of "interested persons" on that one issue, I imagine
comments can continue to be posted to that one category #11 (provided it is
on topic) and existing constituency members can scan delete if they are too
busy to add input. A summary report to the wg-review is then anticipated by
Jan 8th to assist the main wg-review report for those items.

I hope this agenda is sufficiently orderly and manageable to gain your
support.

Regards,

Joanna
Individual Domain Name Holder



--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html