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

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

On Jan 3rd Philip wrote:
< I am sure the WG chair can co-ordinate discussion and composite replies.>

Maybe not. First, this WG was not told that it's results would be "added to
existing replies" , and second, Philip's stated terms of reference for this
group are vastly different terms from those laid out to members by the Chair
on December 23rd.

For convenience I have pasted both versions below:

Thanks,.
Joanna


 YJ wrote on December 23rd:

Since Review WG is formed, it seems proper that this group
discuss and finalize this terms of reference or charter. As we
all know, there should be some changes in the timeframe of
this WG and possibly others.

Thank you,
YJ

================================
                                                    2000. 12. 13
================================
Name of WG : DNSO Review Working Group
================================
Terms of Reference. version 0.3

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.

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.

To carry out its mission, Review Working Group will:

Answer to the Questionnaire of Names Council Review Task Force
Review DNSO's responsibilities and its performance.
Develop recommendations for making DNSO function as designed.

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.

Discussion of a DNSO Review Working Group started in the
Yokohama NC meeting. See Yokohama minutes,
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000714.NCyokohama-minutes.html
where a Review Working Group was supposed to be created soon.
Then it was deferred until the Marina del Rey NC meeting.
At the Annual ICANN meeting in Marina del Rey in November 2000,
the formal creation of Review Working Group was agreed upon
by majority vote of the Names Council.

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.

These are issue list Review WG aims at making recommendations
after its debates and discussion which will ameliorate DNSO/ICANN.

* The role of working groups in the bottoms-up consensus process
* The Names Council's functions and responsibilities
* The General Assembly's function and responsibilities
* Re-examine the relationship between NC and General Assembly
* Relationship between NC and ICANN staff : Better identify
    which issues should begin with in the DNSO and which should
    be handled by the ICANN staff. i.e.
* Define a better procedure for forming working groups and for
    making working groups productive.
* 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.
   Amendments and changes to the existing structures and processes
   will be developed and posted for comment and discussion.

4. Administrative Information

I. Chair or co-chairs:
YJ Park: NC
Co-Chair: To be elected by the WG>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------

 And on Jan 3rd, Philip wrote:-

 It is important  not to consider this WG in the same light as previous
WGs.
> It is not intended to solve DNSO operational problems, nor be the only
means
> of response to the Names Council Review Task Force Questionnaire (NCRTFQ).
> There have already been two calls via the GA and the Constituencies over
the
> last few months to respond to the NCRTFQ. The NC's objective for this WG
is
> to add to the existing replies. Consensus on the replies is desirable but
> not essential. A reply to a question that 10 people think this and 15
think
> that is valid too.
>
> 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 finalised and goes to the Board in advance of Melbourne.
>
> 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.
>
> Philip.



--
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