<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] [Agenda] Issues List - 4
Dear Chris,
I thank you for the clarification attempt but you maintain here an
incomplete view of the situation of this WG-Review (things are moving
so fast) !!!
IMHO from published documents by Chair, DNSO and Mr. Philip
Sheppard's "enlighten" mails, here is now the situation as a low IQ
member of this WG-Review may understand it. I therefore request
formal clarification to the concerned persons.
Jefsey
Dear Chair, dear Mr. Stubb, dear Mr. Sheppard,
1. If I read correctly Mrs. Elisabeth Porteneuve's report of DNSO/NC
meeting of Dec. 19 chaired by Mr. Philip Sheppard:
(this report has been
- there has been several disagreements between Mrs. YJ Park
and other Members on procedural matters and on the WG-Group.
- I feel that most of us would have supported Mrs. YJ Park's
positions on procedural points as they seem to call for a strict
respect of the NC Members' statements and positions.
- Mr. Philip Sheppard has proposed a final position everybody
supported with restrictions by Mrs. YJ Park.
- this motion is more a time pressured compromise than a
consensus since several key points risen by Members are
apparently missing.
- Mr. Philip Sheppard was assigned the role of coordinating
with Mrs. YJ Park.
- the question of the GA Chair which has been risen for months
by Mr. Roberto Gaetano and which is at the core of a
large number of visions of a reviewed DNSO, has not even
been discussed.
2. If I refer to my personal archives of this list:
- Mrs. YJ Park has sent to the list the questionnaire of the
NC on the 12/28/2000
- Mrs. YJ Park has copied to all the list a mail from Mr. Wayne
Sheppard quoting the bylaws concerning the DNSO so everyone
known the rules.
- from this Mrs. YJ Park has produced a set of 10 subjects
- as you note it, I have introduced 3 new subject which have been
accepted by the Chair. Point 11 and 13 immediately and 12 after
the post of Mr. Miles Marsh.
- several NC Members including Ken Stubb (Chair) have participated
to the debates of this WG-Review, while one of the first debater was
Mr. Karl Auerbach from the BoD.
This calls for a clarification as we do not clearly know if this WG is
to report to:
- Mrs. Theresa Swinehart ( NC Task Force author of the famous
questionnaire nobody seem to be interested in)
- Mr. Ken Stubb as Chair of the NC
- Mr. Karl Auerback (BoD) who explained he was within the BoD
in charge of the DNSO inputs.
- then Mr. Philip Sheppard joined the WG-Review at the last
minute to be able to participate to the WG-Review possible co-Chair
election, and:
- proposed different assignments to the WG-Review without
prior coordination with Mrs. YJ Park, based - from what we may
understand - upon a reading practice of the NC meeting report
precisely objected by Mrs. YJ Park in her procedural points
under review.
- explained us that we could follow our Chair point of view
and stay in the dark.
- published that the questionnaire had not been circulated and
copied it again to the working group creating confusion as
nobody has made a diff between Mrs. Yj Park's and Mr.
Philip Sheppard's version to see if they identical or not.
All this confusion seem to result from personal disagreements
between Mr. Philip Sheppard and Mrs. YJ Park about the very
interest and mission of the WG-Review.
1. We have seen Mrs. YJ Park achievements and commitments.
Until Mr. Philip Sheppard who decided to step in by own move
has not plainly explained his position, this WG-Review we will
probably side with Mrs. YJ Park.
==> Could Mr. Philip Sheppard explain in what his position is
different from Mrs. YJ Park? What is his rationale?
2. We would certainly be interested to know what we are working
for and spending time, money and resources?
- in Mr. Elisabeth Porteneuve report the date of the 9th is first
quoted as the limit date. That date was also quoted in here
as the date for a "temporary report"
- then the date of the 15th is adopted without explanation why
they can postpone by 7 days. What that the period foreseen
for an internal revision of the WG-Review report?
- there is a mention of a public comment after that process.
If this is the case why have we not been told?
Why this WG-Review could not pursue its activities and
participate to that comment as anybody else (may be as
a GA WG?).
- as I previously asked: is that appropriate that Members
of the bodies we are reporting to be Members of the
WG-Review?
- there is an obvious difficulty to understand from all this
under which rules this WG operates, to do what and to
which end.
==> Would that be contemptuous to ask the NC to
ask the NC to clarify these basic points before
Jan 9th (or is too short a delay) so we may
respond by Jan 15th?
I suppose there is a consensus on this WG-Review to say that
unless proper responses, through proper channels equivalent to its
creation (NC vote) the mission of this WG-Review is to
freely discuss and report to an undetermined yet destinee, copy to
who it finds appropriate), in the way if finds appropriate on the
following 13 points (probably in taking into account the
DNSO/NC/TF Questionnaire which is however viewed by some
as a part/example of the problem to solve):
1. [Charter] Review Process Background and Charter Discussion
2. [Outreach and DNSO] Report requested by NC
3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
4. [GA] Report requested by NC
5. [Working Group] Report requested by NC
6. [Secretariat] Report requested by NC
7. [Names Council] Report requested by NC
8. [WG A, B, C and DNSO] Report requested by NC
9. [DNSO Quality] Report requested by NC
10. [The Board and DNSO] Report requested by NC
11. [IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by
12. [STLD] specialized TLD constituency, Report requested by WG-Review
13. [DNSO/GA Chair election] Report requested by WG-Review Members
From current observed practice it appears that the WG-Review will
produce motions concerning the DNSO Best Practices, elect a
Co-Chair on Jan 15th and will pursue comments and motions at
least until Melbourne Meeting.
Thank you for your responses and comments.
Jefsey
===============================================
For your information: Mrs Elisabeth Porteneuve's report
===============================================
>[ To: council@dnso.org ]
>[ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ]
>
>[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-minutes.html ]
>
>ICANN/DNSO
>
> DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 19 December 2000 - minutes
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>21 December 2000.
>
>Proposed agenda and related documents:
>
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20001219.NCtelecon-agenda.html
>
>List of attendees:
>
> Peter de Blanc ccTLD (left early, proxy to Porteneuve)
> Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD
> Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent (apology)
> Philip Sheppard Business
> Theresa Swinehart Business (left early, proxy to Sheppard)
> Hirofumi Hotta ISPCP
> Tony Harris ISPCP
> Michael Schneider ISPCP
> Erica Roberts Registrars
> Ken Stubbs Registrars absent (apology, proxy to Kane)
> Paul Kane Registrars
> Roger Cochetti gTLD
> Caroline Chicoine IP (left early, proxy to aus der
> Muhlen)
> Axel Aus der Muhlen IP
> Guillermo Carey IP absent
> Youn Jung Park NCDNH
> Dany Vandromme NCDNH
> Zakaria Amar NCDNH absent
> Louis Touton ICANN staff
> Maca Jamin Scribe
>
>Due to family emergency Ken Stubbs was prevented from chairing this meeting.
>Philip Sheppard chaired the entire session on his behalf.
>
>Quorum present at 14:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
>during the winter in the North hemisphere)
>
>Note: BC has not yet replaced Masanobu Katoh, newly elected at-large
>Director. The BC aims to do so before the next NC meeting in January. L.
>Touton confirmed that according to the ICANN Bylaws M. Katoh cannot
>participate in NC meetings anymore and consequently his proxy cannot be
>used.
>
>Minutes of the meeting.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 1. Approval of the Agenda
>
> Two items were added under AOB:
>
> i) Call for nominations for the NC Chairman
>
> ii) Election of the GA Chair
>
> Decision D1:
>
> Including the above modifications the agenda for the meeting was
> unanimously approved.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 2. Approval of the summary of the meetings on 19th October
> and 14th November
>
> October 19th teleconference
>
> Y.J. Park pointed out that the motion concerning the approval
> process of the minutes (minutes to be approved by the NC first and
> then published) does not figure in the text of the 19th October
> teleconference minutes. She requested setting up a formal process
> and tracking different versions to settle controversial points.
>
> E. Porteneuve clarified that the only change after the draft
> initially circulated concerned the discussion of the required
> number of votes to adopt Decision D3 and L. Touton stated that
> change was made in a e-mail E. Porteneuve had sent to the whole
> NC. Y.J. Park was still unhappy with the version and to move the
> meeting forward Ph. Sheppard proposed to continue the discussion
> concerning the 19th October minutes off-line.
>
> E. Roberts suggested putting in place a simple process: scribe
> sends the minutes to the Chair who amends or approves and asks the
> Secretariat to release a draft. Any subsequent change to this
> draft is recorded and approved by the Chair until a final version
> is approved by the NC.
>
> 14th November meeting
>
> C. Chicoine requested adding a reference to an e-mail from Y J
> Park (3 Oct 2000
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00335.html) to
> clarify the intent of the motion Chicoine had proposed.
>
> L. Touton expressed his concern about the procedure of using the
> Berkmann Center notes as minutes: they are not generated for this
> purpose and we should be taking this fact into account.
>
> P. Kane suggested using the session videotape to check on
> controversy.
>
> E. Roberts remembered C. Chicoine's intervention and supported the
> idea of adding this reference to the minutes.
>
> Y.J. Park expressed a desire to consult the videotape of the
> meeting and make amendments later.
>
> Decision D2:
>
> The minutes of Oct 19 were approved. The minutes of 14 November
> were approved, with the insertion of the e-mail reference. The
> reservation expressed by Y.J. Park was noted.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 4. Secretarial support to DNSO prior to recruitment of
> permanent staff and openess and recording of NC meetings
>
> 4.1 Status of AFNIC support
>
> E. Porteneuve described the current functioning of the
> Secretariat now that she was an NC member. Her role is that
> of a Project Manager consisting in managing administrative
> and technical matters. A third party takes minutes of the
> meetings.
>
> E. Roberts questioned if the primary task consisted in
> maintaining the DNSO web page.
>
> E. Porteneuve provided detailed description of the tasks:
> monitoring mailing lists, managing security tools, ensuring
> back-up functions, updating the site, providing support to
> the GA, etc.
>
> E. Roberts suggested discussing this under the item on the
> Budget Committee
>
> 4.2 Recording secretary
>
> L. Touton pointed out that arrangements should be made to
> compensate a third party for taking minutes. The question was
> raised if the interim recording scribe is needed to work in
> tandem with E. Porteneuve until we recruit a full time
> secretary.
>
> P. de Blanc recalled that there were some suggestions to hire
> a stenographer. R. Cochetti developed this idea by suggesting
> that the NC Chair or ICANN staff ensure that the minutes are
> taken and audio recording made at reasonable cost.
>
> P. de Blanc said that a certain degree of formality should be
> added in case of controversial points. The latter will not be
> approved until a portion of a tape was circulated to all NC
> members.
>
> R. Cochetti suggested giving a responsibility to the Chair
> and a practical part to the Project Manager and ICANN staff
> to provide recording secretary and audio tape recording for
> each meeting.
>
> P.Kane added that this should be on an interim basis until a
> permanent support has been put in place.
>
> Y.J. Park raised the issue of procedures for eventual
> transcripts, and impacted cost.
>
> Th. Swinehart stressed that a tape transcription could be
> costly.
>
> The following motion was approved by all with Y.J. Park
> abstaining:
>
> Decision D3:
>
> Until such time as the DNSO has internal staff support that
> is sufficient to provide these services, the Chair, or in the
> Chair's absence, the ICANN Secretary in conjunction with the
> AFNIC Project Manager, are requested to procure and, at
> reasonable cost, compensate, a scribe for each teleconference
> or other Names Council meeting. The scribe will prepare
> minutes of each meeting and the taking and maintenance of an
> audio recording of each meeting provided that if any NC
> member disputes what he or she has said in the resulting
> draft minutes, a transcript of the relevant portion of the
> audio recording shall be prepared and made available to the
> NC before its formal approval of the minutes. The NC Chair
> and ICANN Secretary are further requested to report
> periodically to the NC on the costs incurred.
>
> C. Chicoine states she had to leave the meeting and asked to switch
> item 6 with item 5.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 6. LA follow-up - proposed "Review Working Group"
>
> C. Chicoine restated that her intention in proposing a group
> during the NC meeting in Marina del Rey was limited to the
> proposals made in YJ Park's e-mail of 3 October (referenced
> above).
>
> Ph. Sheppard recalled that since then there had been
> misunderstanding on what had been intended in the request made of
> Y J Park. Nevertheless the NC now had a revised proposal (December
> 10 e-mail from Y J Park Subject: Terms of Reference[version 0.2] :
> Review Working Group) for a Review Working Group (WG) and needed
> to react to that proposal. He noted that the terms of reference
> proposed in that proposal included:
> + Prepare a repsponse to the questionnaire prepared by the
> Review Task Force
> + Review DNSO responsibilties and performance
> + Develop recommendations for making DNSO work as designed
>
> Y.J. Park referred to discussions in Yokohama to form a Working
> Group. Following informal discussions with selected parties she
> had proposed terms of reference for a Review Working Group with a
> mission to:
> + respond to the questionnaire of the NC Review Task Force
> (RTF)
> + Review DNSO procedures
> + Send comments to the ICANN Board.
>
> P. Kane expressed his support of a Working Group as a means of
> outreach. As a representative of the Registrars constituency he
> wanted though to find out if the intention was to provide answers
> to the Review Task Force Questionnaire or NC as this would be
> preferable, instead of forwarding comments to the ICANN Board
> directly.
>
> Y.J. Park agreed that the WG output would go to the NC.
>
> C. Chicoine supported the idea that all results should come out of
> the collaborative work within the NC Review Task Force and not as
> a separate initiative.
>
> In order to find a proper balance Y.J. Park suggested that Th.
> Swinehart, a leader of the NC Review Task Force helps to
> co-ordinate the two activities.
>
> Th. Swinehart expressed some concern about this idea and briefly
> reviewed the whole process:
> + She expressed concern that the practice that has been
> followed by the group convened by YJ is not consistent with
> YJ's proposal.
> + She stated that any NC liaison to a Working Group should be
> formally appointed by the NC.
>
> P. Sheppard stated that the second and third tasks proposed for
> the Working Group overlapped with the tasks assigned to the Task
> Force. Therefore, the Working Group should focus on the first task
> (answering the Task Force's questionnaire).
>
> R. Cochetti recalled that it was approved at the Marina del Rey
> meeting, that there was to be a close link between the Working
> Group and the DNSO Review Task Force. A mechanism is needed to
> provide broad comments and the GA could play an important role
> here. There is no point in a Review Working Group and Review Task
> Force reporting separately to the NC.
>
> Th. Swinehart informed that GA is preparing comments R. Gaetano,
> GA Chair, is working on that, and she observed time is limited. We
> are going through the second round of consultation right now and
> we have no possibility of extending the January 9 deadline. A
> report has to be sent to the ICANN Board before the meeting in
> Melbourne.
>
> After this intervention Th. Swinehart had to leave the call
>
> Y.J. Park pointed out the timing difficulty in conducting this
> work by January 9, as the WG had not been created after the
> Yokohama meeting. She also stressed that certain GA members she
> had spoken to were not happy with the process, which they saw as a
> top-down process.
>
> P. Kane remarked that if GA members are talking to Y.J. they are
> taking part in the process, and that that together with the two
> calls for Constituency consultation, means we cannot speak of a
> top-down but definitely of a bottom-up approach. He also raised
> the question: Does the Working Group propose to review answers to
> the Review Task Force questions only or are there any other issues
> the group is interested to address?
>
> Y.J. Park explained that if we had not had more responses by now,
> it is because people are suspicious. The main goal of the Working
> Group is to enable those people to take an active part in the
> process.
>
> P. de Blanc insisted that sufficient credibility should be given
> to the process itself, aimed at providing a sound DNSO
> contribution to the Board. He supported the idea of the Working
> Group because of its inherent promotional value ensuring that the
> highest importance is given to the issue.
>
> P. de Blanc left the call after his intervention at 15:31 - proxy
> given to E. Porteneuve.
>
> E. Roberts restated that comments are due by January 9th. The
> possibility of extending that deadline could only be envisaged if
> it also allowed enough time for the Review Task Force to draft its
> report. The working group will therefore, have to conclude by
> January.
>
> Y.J. Park noted the practical problems of a short life time of the
> WG especially given the likely period of inactivity during the
> Christmas period.
>
> C. Chicoine rejoined a call at 15:36 and recommended that
> responding to the Review Task Force Questionnaire would be a valid
> and useful role for the WG.
>
> T. Harris seconded C. Chicoine's point.
>
> Ph. Sheppard summarised debate as centered around two questions:
>
> - do we need a Review Working Group ?
>
> - if yes to define a clear objective and timetable.
>
> P. Kane stressed the importance of the outreach in raising
> awareness on any issue. He suggested producing a press release in
> order to reach the largest possible audience.
>
> Ph. Sheppard reminded the NC that the key objective is twofold:
> get the largest possible response to the RTF questionnaire and
> provide input to the Board according to a set timetable.
>
> E. Porteneuve was in favour of setting up of a Working Group even
> for a short period of time and to stimulate participation by
> issuing a press release.
>
> Ph. Sheppard proposed a possible solution to the debate:
>
> - set-up a Working Group immediately with a mission to
> provide additional answers to the Review Task Force
> questionnaire and report them back to the Review Task Force
>
> - give it a deadline of January 15th
>
> - issue a press release to increase participation.
>
> Y.J. Park noted that the discussion is taking place on a different
> ground, as it is unrealistic that these objectives be achieved by
> January 15th.
>
> D. Vandromme supported that idea because in his view it seems
> rather difficult to get high quality work done in such a short
> period of time. He suggested extending the lifetime of the Working
> Group.
>
> L. Touton reminded the NC of the problems in setting up a
> different schedule from the one stated by Th. Swinehart as
> necessary to get the report to the ICANN Board in time for the
> Melbourne meeting
>
> E. Roberts supported the idea of coping with the timetable as set.
> Two rounds of constituency and GA outreach had already been done.
> Establishing a Working Group is a great idea, but extending the
> time table past January 15 will prevent us complying with the
> request of the ICANN Board.
>
> D. Vandromme insisted that it is better to have more time and
> produce a good report instead of providing an empty shell on time.
>
> E. Roberts said that the report would not be an empty shell as
> there are lots of comments already available.
>
> Ph. Sheppard urged not to extend the timeline too far and make
> sure the process stays on track.
>
> D. Vandromme pointed out that the Review Working Group covers a
> different population.
>
> T. Harris opposed the idea of extending the timeline for
> questionnaire replies as that would reduce the time for public
> comments on the NC final report itself.
>
> Ph. Sheppard made the following proposal:
>
> Decision D4:
>
> - establish a Review Working Group, chaired by Y.J. Park
>
> - make the "terms of reference" "responding to the RTF
> questionnaire"
>
> - make the lifetime of the WG January 15th
>
> - ask the group to report by January 15th to the NC Review
> Task Force.
>
> - issue a press release immediately to encourage
> participation in this WG.
>
> The following members voted in favour: Chicoine, aus der Mühlen,
> Roberts, Hotta, Harris, Cochetti, Sheppard, Swinehart (by proxy),
> de Blanc (by proxy), Porteneuve, Kane, Stubbs (by proxy), YJ Park
> (with the reserve that the given timeframe is too short to
> accomplish this task properly).
>
> Vandromme abstained.
>
> Ph. Sheppard offered to draft the press release, to liase with YJ
> Park and to ask Ken Stubbs as NC Chair (assuming availability) to
> approve it on behalf of the NC.
>
> C. Chicoine left the meeting and gave her proxy to A. aus der
> Muhlen
>
>
> * Agenda Item 5. LA follow up - Business Plan
>
> Ph. Sheppard informed participants that a Business Plan Task Force
> (TF) had been established comprising one representative from each
> of the NC constituencies. The TF had agreed on a draft set of
> objectives for the business plan and this draft will now be sent
> to the NC with a request to circulate the plan for comments by
> Constituencies. Following the comment period - which will be
> focused only on the proposed top-line objectives for the NC, the
> TF will revise the business plan and add detail of the strategies,
> actions and measures of success necessary to fulfill the agreed
> objectives. After that revision the final plan will be presented
> to the NC for approval.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 7. New TLDs
>
> The discussion on this subject was postponed until the January
> meeting. On a request, L. Touton briefly reported on negotiation
> over new TLDs. More work is needed and ICANN does not expect to
> finalise agreements for all seven TLDs by end December as
> originally hoped.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 8. LA follow-up -WHOIS
>
> P. Kane announced that Rebecca Nesson is doing a good job as
> co-ordinator of an informal ICANN consulting group on WHOIS
> issues.
>
> L.Touton added that the group will send a report to ICANN staff by
> the end of January who will then refer issues of policy to the NC
> for discussion.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 9. Budget Committee status report
>
> R. Cochetti apologised for not being able to provide a written
> report to the NC (he had his laptop stolen). He informed the NC:
>
> i) the budget committee has reviewed an invoice sent by AFNIC
> for NC secretariat services 2000 and it recommends paying the
> full subject to:
>
> - provision of services at no cost during an interim
> period not to exceed March 31st 2001,
>
> - a satisfactory solution to questions of intellectual
> property rights in mail lists, databases, web site
> content etc
>
> - provision of greater detail on certain cost items.
>
> ii) the budget committee is completing a proposed budget for
> 2001 based on certain assumptions:
>
> - the money collected in year 2000 and the dues
> outstanding
>
> - expenditures in 2000
>
> - a presumption that voluntary funds raised in 2001 will
> cover an estimated cost of $120,000 to hire an NC
> secretary.
>
> Depending on the final outcome of budget committee discussions the
> proposed budget for 2001 is not expected to result in a call for
> NC constituency contributions in excess of $13,000 each. A full
> report will be circulated to the NC in January.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 10. Independent review panel nomination committee proposal
> - status report
>
> Ph. Sheppard informed that some names had now been forwarded to
> the NC Secretariat.
>
> L.Touton stated that the NC was charged to appoint two people.
>
> E. Roberts requested more details on the role of the nominating
> committee. L. Touton will send necessary information.
>
> It was agreed that the Intake Committee will add a point for the
> January agenda to recommend two names at that meeting.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 11. Request from GA Chair for NC to consider an individuals
> Constituency
>
> This item was postponed to the next meeting.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 12. Duke University Law Report
>
> As P. de Blanc had to leave the meeting earlier, the discussion
> was postponed to the next meeting.
>
>
> * Agenda Item 13. Any Other Business
>
> NC Chair
>
> The term of office for Ken Stubbs expires 6 months after the
> July meeting in Yokohama and so a new Chair will be required
> following the NC meeting in January. To help with the choice,
> E. Porteneuve will communicate to all NC members the
> statistics about the past chairs. Members of the NC are
> requested to send nominations.
>
> GA Chair
>
> E. Porteneuve will send an e-mail to the Names Council
> updating the NC on the status of the election of the GA
> Chair.
>
>Ph. Sheppard closed the meeting and thanked all attendees for their
>participation.
>
>
>
>End of meeting at 16:40 CET. Next Names Council Teleconference is scheduled
>for Wednesday January 24th 2001
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Information from: © DNSO Names Council
On 04:25 06/01/01, Chris McElroy said:
>You know, this is definitely irritating. YJ Park, our Chair, posted a list
>of Topics. We added two to that list as a group. The along came another list
>of topics. While similar, they were not quite the same. Now this list is
>given to me, a third list. Now you say this is not the list of topics
>either, or at least not the approved list.
>
>Approved by whom?
>
>When do we get THE List of Topics?
>
>List 1.
>
>As some members expressed it is urgent to concentrate our energies
>and efforts on the specific issues to reach consensus within the group
>and finally Review WG can provide its (interim/final)report until Jan 15.
>
>Additional issues and concerns can be freely discussed if the necessity
>arises such as General Assembly Chair election process.
>
>To make discussion more effective from now on, whenever members
>circulate the message to the list, it is recommended for members to
>specify the subject title out of ten here. - the subject can be expanded
>subject to the requests by members.
>
>1. [Charter] Review Process Background and Charter Discussion
>2. [Outreach and DNSO] Report requested by NC
>3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
>4. [GA] Report requested by NC
>5. [Working Group] Report requested by NC
>6. [Secretariat] Report requested by NC
>7. [Names Council] Report requested by NC
>8. [WG A, B, C and DNSO] Report requested by NC
>9. [DNSO Quality] Report requested by NC
>10. [The Board and DNSO] Report requested by NC
>
>Thanks,
>YJ
>
>Addendum to list 1
>Hello Jefsey,
>
>Thank you for your suggestions here.
>
>After your proposal, it appears that this group is keen on 11.[IDNH]
>however, it's hard to see any specific response to 12 and 13 except
>James Wright's second.
>
> > - 11. [IDNH] individual domain holder constituency, Report requested by
> > WG-Review Members
> > - 12. [STLD] specialized TLD constituency, Report requested by WG-Review
> > Members
> > - 13. [DNSO/GA Chair election] Report requested by WG-Review Members
>
>Therefore, it would be productive not to handle 12[STLD] in this process and
>it would be of help to have more detailed consulation with GA regarding 13
>[GA Chair Election] before this group fully start its review process.
>
>Thanks,
>YJ
>
>List 2
>
>It is odd that the Names Council Review Task Force Questionnaire was not
>circulated on the WG-review list. Here it is. Philip.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------
>
>From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
>Theresa Swinehart
>Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:25 PM
>To: nc-review@dnso.org; 'names council'
>Subject: [council] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.
>
>
>All NC Review and NC members,
>
>Please find below the DNSO review 2.0 to be forwarded to all constituencies.
>Constituency representatives are responsible for forwarding this to their
>constituencies, and ensuring that any constituency comments are forwarded to
>the NC Review committee. Instructions on comments is in the document below
>under 'Instructions for responding'.
>
>Responses by October 9th would be most useful, and will be included in what
>is forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses will also
>be incorporated in the report with conclusions and recommendations from the
>NC to the Board one week prior to the Los Angeles meeting.
>
>Comments from the GA are included in this outreach, and all can participate
>in that forum as well (i.e., this is a working group of the whole). Roberto
>is the point of contact, and together with Harald, should provide to the
>review committee comments from the GA.
>
>Specific for Constituency and GA representatives: In addition to collecting
>comments on the document below, we also need to include information on the
>growth and development of the DNSO. This information will be collected
>specifically in coordination with the respective constituencies, GA, and
>secretariat. Please provide as constituency representatives the responses
>for your respective constituencies, and/or where relevant.
>
>How have the membership of constituencies grown over the past year?
>
>How has the GA grown?
>
>How has contribution to ICANN and NC secretariat increased in past year?
>
>How many new countries added to membership in past year?
>
>How many countries are not represented in DNSO?
>
>
>*******************************************************************
>
>DNSO Review 2.0 --
>
>Outline for the DNSO Review
>
>Status of Draft: This document is the result of several drafts (1.1-1.3)
>discussed in the NC review, and NC, to formulate a document with questions
>that would provide a basis for constituencies to comment and review the
>DNSO. Document 2.0 was prepared following the NC teleconference September
>21, 2000 and comments received following circulation after the call.
>
>Instructions for responding:
>
>Document 2.0 (which is Draft 1.3 with last NC comments) must be forwarded by
>each NC-Review Representative to the respective constituency for comment and
>input. Comments are to be compiled by the respective NC-Review
>Representatives, and forwarded to the NC-Review committee. The GA Chair will
>be responsible for overseeing the continued GA input to this working
>progress.
>
>In responses please provide concrete examples and the basis for conclusions,
>rather than just conclusory statements. Please also make clear from whom
>(not the person's name, but what interest(s) they represent) the comments
>are coming from. Please also offer specific suggestions; either that
>specific DNSO things are working well or that they are not; and if they are
>not how we think they can be improved.
>
>Time for Comments: Comments and responses to questions in document 2.0
>received by October 9th would be useful and can be included in what is
>forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses will also, of
>course, be incorporated in the report containing conclusions and
>recommendations from the NC prior to the Los Angeles meeting.
>
>
>I. Introduction:
>
>The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, with the responsibility of
>advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the
>domain name system. The DNSO has the primary responsibility for developing
>and recommending substantive policies regarding to the domain name system.
>Additionally, the Board can refer proposals for substantive policies
>regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and
>recommendation to the Board. Subject to the provision of Article III,
>Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the Board shall accept the recommendations
>of the DNSO if it finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the
>purposes of, and is in the best interest of, ICANN; (2) is consistent with
>ICANN's articles of incorporation and bylaws; (3) was arrived at through
>fair and open processes (including participation by representatives of other
>Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by
>the ASO or PSO.
>
>II. Background:
>
>The DNSO was formally established in March 1999 as one of ICANN's three SOs.
>It was formed following extensive global discussions and communications,
>with the intent of trying to establish an SO that represented the
>stakeholders in ICANN necessary for developing and recommending substantive
>polices regarding the domain name system. Since its establishment, it has
>made three recommendations for policies to the ICANN Board involving dispute
>resolution, new top-level domains, and famous trademarks and the operation
>of the domain-name system. During this period it has also chosen four
>directors to the ICANN Board through two sets of elections. With this
>experience with the DNSO's actual performance, it is now appropriate to
>review the DNSO to determine whether it is fulfilling its commitments, and
>whether it needs to be adjusted in order to better fulfill them.
>
>III. Review:
>
>The objectives of the DNSO Review Committee are:
>
>· To review the DNSO's responsibilities and its work.
>· To recommend making DNSO function as designed.
>· To review and discuss this with the respective constituencies, and general
>assembly of the DNSO.
>
>Outlined below are sections addressing the structure of the DNSO, and
>specific questions on the responsibilities of the organization, and the
>structure. This draft attempts to consolidate comments received on draft
>1.0, which was circulated to the NC-Review.
>
>The review will conclude with recommendations, if any, on how to better
>improve the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the organization, and
>whether any improvements require structural changes. The Initial
>Self-Assessment of the DNSO Review is due October 13th.
>
>
>
>III. DNSO Responsibilities:
>
>The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy
>issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSO's primary responsibility
>is to develop and recommend substantive policies regarding to the domain
>name system. Additionally, the Board can refer substantive policies
>regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and
>recommendation to the Board.
>
>To date, the DNSO has been tasked with the following responsibilities:
>
>A. Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group A, Names
>Council's review of Working Group A report, followed by the Names Council
>recommendation based on the Working Group A's report to the Board and the
>final adoption by the ICANN Board.
>
>B. new generic Top Level Domains (new gTLDs): Working Group B and C, Names
>Council review of Working Group B and C's reports, followed by its
>recommendations to the Board.
>
>C. DNSO ICANN Board Elections: Two elections held: 1) October 1999, choosing
>three ICANN Board members for 3, 2, 1 years respectively; 2) September 2000,
>filling the three year seat for the 1 year expired seat.
>
>· To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A, B and C?
>
>· Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate
>consensus of the affected stakeholders? Have the viewpoints of all
>stakeholders been considered?
>
>· Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of being
>timely and being structured with a degree of specificity/flexibility
>appropriate to allow practical implementation?
>
>· To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies, have they
>received the support of those being asked to implement them?
>
>· Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to its
>attention through the Names Council?
>
>
>· Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?
>
>· Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA) and
>the relationship among them well defined?
>
>· How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the
>amount of objective consensus building, with its current structure? With a
>different structure?
>
>· Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed? If
>not, how can the degree of expertise be enhanced?
>
>
>V. Structure:
>
>The structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven constituencies, and
>the General Assembly.
>
>A. Names Council:
>
>Under the ICANN bylaws, the Names Council is responsible for the management
>of the consensus-building process of the DNSO. The NC consists of
>representatives selected by each of seven constituencies. The NC functions
>via a list serve, regular teleconference calls, and physical meetings in
>conjunction with ICANN quarterly meetings. There have been concerns that the
>DNSO Names Council has evolved into a generalist body. Questions below aim
>to address the role of the NC, and how to improve it.
>
>· Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to steer and manage the
>DNSO consensus process, or can this be improved?
>
>· What are the proper expectations for the Names Council, and what is its
>proper role in relation to the DNSO and the ICANN Board?
>
>· Should the NC take a more active role in managing the
>consensus-development process, for example by giving working groups more
>defined charters and more frequently reviewing the state of their work?
>
>· How can the NC enhance the level of technical or other expertise employed
>in the consensus-development process?
>
>· How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed management of
>ICANN?
>
>· Does the NC manage the policy-development process so that recommendations
>are reached in a timely manner?
>
>· Does the existing structure work to generate consensus recommendations on
>domain name matters?
>
>· Does the Names Council give appropriate level of consideration to the
>views of all affected stakeholders?
>
>· The NC recommendations have been criticized as often being 'weak', or
>merely reflecting the outcome of the respective working groups. How can the
>NC interpret the outcome of the working groups, and formulate a better
>defined and stronger recommendations consistent with the consensus process?
>
>· Do the NC representatives adequately communicate with their respective
>constituencies? Do the constituencies communicate with their NC
>representatives?
>
>· Does the NC adequately communicate with the ICANN staff and Board?
>
>· Does the NC adequately communicate with other SO Councils?
>
>· After consulting ICANN staff to address details which require legal and
>technical expertise, does the NC review whether or not such input is
>sufficient?
>
>· How can the NC improve the role of the DNSO under ICANN, and improve its
>ability to provide advice and input to the ICANN Board on domain name
>policy issues?
>
>
>B. Constituencies:
>
>· Are the constituencies a correct division? Are all DNSO interests
>adequately represented in the existing constituency groups? Do the current
>divisions aggregate individuals or entities with closely aligned interests
>and permit the development of focused positions?
>
>· Should the constituencies be reformulated by combining user
>constituencies? By combining provider constituencies? In some other way?
>
>· Is it up to each constituency to define its relationship with NC
>representatives or should the DNSO/ICANN have some minimal mandatory
>requirements for all?
>
>· What happens if an elected NC rep does not attend NC meetings, ignores
>constituency members? Is this up to the constituency to address, or should
>it be brought to the attention of the NC?
>
>· Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and transparent
>channels of dialogue and discussion toward the development of community
>consensus? Do they allow effective development of collective positions of
>those with similar interests? Does this process promote the development of
>overall community consensus?
>
>· Does the current constituency division minimize the effectiveness of the
>DNSO and NC?
>
>· Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended members? Or
>are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need better
>representation?
>
>· Should there be a constituency for individuals, and if so, how should its
>membership be constituted?
>
>· How do you ensure that individuals who choose to form an individual
>constituency represent the vast interests
>of individuals ?
>
>· No constituencies have been added since the original seven constituencies
>were recognized (provisionally) in May 1999. What should be the ongoing
>process for assessing whether the constituencies serving the goal of
>providing appropriate forums for affected stakeholder groups?
>
>
>C. General Assembly (GA):
>
>· What should the future role of the GA be?
>
>· Is the function of the GA properly defined?
>
>· How can the level of participation by constituency members in the GA be
>improved?
>
>· How can the level of participation by GA members in the GA be improved?
>
>· If changes are made in the constituency structures, and possibly an
>individual constituency added, should the GA continue to exist?
>
>D. Working Groups:
>
>· Are the working groups an appropriate mechanisms to foster consensus in
>the DNSO?
>
>· If the NC can't find consensus in a working group report, what should be
>the next step?
>
>· Are there mechanisms other than working groups that the NC should employ
>in managing the consensus-development process? For example, assigned task
>forces?
>
>
>E. Secretariat:
>
>· What is the relationship between the ICANN Secretariat, the DNSO
>secretariat, and the Constituency secretariats?
>
>
>VI. Other Review Questions:
>
>· Have the DNSO recommendations furthered the ICANN work consistent with the
>provision in Article VI, Section 2(e), of the ICANN Bylaws, that the ICANN
>Board shall accept recommendations of the DNSO if the Board finds that the
>recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest
>of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was
>arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by
>representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4)
>isn't reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization.
>
>
>List 3
>
>As per your request, Chris, this was the last post in that thread. Thanks
>to Rod Dixon for his work in compiling this.
>
> >Structural and/or Procedural Problem areas within the DNSO that impede its
> >mission of becoming a bottom-up policy coordination body:
>
>
> >1. Unrepresented constituents.
> >2. Unrepresentative constituencies.
> >3. Process does not encourage compromise among parties with competing
> >positions.
> > 4. The process is not producing adequate documents for the board.
> >5. No agreed definition for "domain name"
> >6. No agreed definition for "end user" and "real end user"
> >7. Poor clarification of issues that ICANN has charter to address that
> >directly affect "end users".
> >8. Process does not encourage compromise among parties with competing
> >positions.
> >9. Arguable the weighting of constituencies (currently all are equal) on
> >Names Council is inappropriate? How can one decide what is appropriate and
> >who decides?
> >10. GA feel marginalized and powerless.
>
>--
>All I want to know is do I now have the whole collection or do these come in
>sets of 4, 5, 6, or more? When collecting I always try to get the complete
>set.
>
>Can we maybe focus on deciding what topics ARE going to be up for discussion
>by this WG? Or do I need to start a working group on that too?
>
>If the American Revolutionaries had met this way, We'd be in WG
>AABHGFDFSWKWJKSJJJJJJH$%$^&*&((*) by now and still have a KING.
>
>
>Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
>To: <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
>Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
>Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 5:40 PM
>Subject: [wg-review] [Agenda] Issues List - 4
>
>
> > At 06:03 PM 1/5/01, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >HOWEVER, if the domain name definition issue were to be settled anytime
> > >soon, it would probably invalidate most (not all, but certainly most) of
> > >the symptom issues which arise as a result of its obscurity. That is, it
> > >would clear up the very same issues we're so self-importantly proclaiming
> > >to be of penultimate importance... Isn't there an old saying: `Can't
>see
> > >the forest for the trees'?
> >
> > It is unclear to me how defining what a "domain name" is will solve
> > problems of structure and process. However - if you really believe it to
>be
> > of paramount importance, you can call for a working group to discuss it.
> >
> > >BTW, I think it's interesting to note that although you state I'm going
> > >off topic, you post the follwing issues list in your very next mailing to
> > >the WG:
> > >...
> > >Did you read this list before posting it? It seems I was indeed
> > >addressing one of the issues on this list, specifically #4, in case you
> > >missed it.
> >
> > Yes I did, yes I did, and yes you were. :) This list has not been
> > discussed, nor agreed upon - it is a compilation that was the beginning of
> > that process. I posted it without editing or commentary. Unfortunately,
>Rod
> > hasn't posted on it since then. My suggestion would be that people who
>want
> > to use this list try and rank the questions in some kind of priority, or
> > just start from the top. If enough people think that the topic is part of
> > our brief, then it will have substantial discussion - and I will be not
> > only amazed, but quite wrong in my understanding of where we're going.
> >
> > That said, as a rule of thumb it's generally unproductive to insert a
> > second topic into a thread that already has enough material in it for
> > substantial dialogue.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greg
> >
> > sidna@feedwriter.com
> >
> > --
> > 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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|