[wg-review] [Draft] Review Working Group's Executive Summary

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Review Working Group's Executive Summary
version 0.1

                                                   2001. 1. 14
                                                        YJ Park

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Staus of Review WG
    a) Membership
    b) Mailing List and related information.
    c) Charter Finalization
    d) NC Review Task Force Questionaire was circulated with sub-titles on
Dec. 28.
    e) Polls and Review WG Co-Chair Election has been being carried out by
Review WG
3. Discussion Issues from Dec. 23 until Jan 14.
    a) Do we need Constituency?
    b) Balanced or Imbalanced Constituencies?
    c) How to add new Constituencies?
    d) Consensus, is measurable?
    e) Who is going to pay?
4. Proposal to Review TF and NC
    a) Proposal to Review TF
    b) Proposal to NC
5. Outlook of Review WG
    a) Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
    b) First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
    c) Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
===========================================================
1. Introduction

Appreciating Names Council collegues who have agreed to form Review Working
Group
on December 19 during NC teleconferece after almost five months' discussion
on DNSO
Review, I would like to extend my hearty gratitude for their proactive
cooperation especially
to current NC Chair, Ken Stubbs, new NC Chair, Philip Sheppard, NC Review
Task Force
Chair, Theresa Swinehart and Louis Tuton who sent Press Release to
"icann-announce" list
(4900+ recipients) and various relevant lists in the DNSO on Dec 22 and Dec
23.

Even though I have been designated as Chair of Review Working Group, there
are many folks
whose credit should be recognized in forming Review WG. First, GA Chair,
Roberto Gaetano,
as one of Review TF members, who has consistantly brought this issue to both
Review Task Force
and GA since Yokohama meeting, Elisabeth Porteneuv, initially as DNSO
Secretariat and later
as NC member of Review TF, Peter de Blanc, Dany Vandromme who have supported
this group
until this group was formed.

For the last, I owe gratefulness to Review Working Group members who have
traded off between
their willingness to review DNSO with sincerity and their Christmas Holiday
and New Year Holiday
due to pressed time given by NC's decision. Therefore, Review Working Group
could have only
23 working days(From Dec. 23 to Jan 14) including Christmas and New Year
Day.

2. Staus of Review WG

a) Membership

Review WG has currently 140 members. On the other hand, there have been 112
unsubscribers
who are conjectured as At-Large members who have little experience and
knowledge with DNSO.
FYI, there are 7 NC members: Peter de Blanc, Elisabeth Porteneuv, Ken
Stubbs, Philip Sheppard,
Erica Roberts, Theresa Swinehart, YJ Park and 2 Board members: Karl
Auerbach, Alejandro Pisanty
who have on and off responded to WG members to achive its true-sense DNSO
review.

b) Mailing List and related information.

Membership approval has been made by wg-owner, myself, mannualy through
majordomo system
without filtering since Dec 23. There have been some delays, however usually
it takes one day or
two days to be approved to subscribe to this list. Therefore, around 252
approval processes have
been needed and right now this function is left with DNSO Listadmin due to
email exchange troubles
caused by ISP.

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
Mails in Archive: 1249 (As of 2001 Jan 13 15:34:34 local time zone is
Central European)
Therefore, the average number per day is 57 messages(22/1249) which proves
how keen
Review WG members have been about DNSO review.

Review WG is composed of people from many from North America, Europe and a
few from
Asia, Latin America and Africa. As we experineced in previous WG discussion,
most active
participants are from US, Europe, New Zealand and Australia who have no
problems with
reading 57 "English" email messages a day and possibly respond to some of
them in "English".

c) Charter Finalization

Before NC Press Release was issued, the concerns that Review WG needs more
substantial working
days and there is no need to highlight the chasing deadline, Jan 15th had d
been delivered, which was
not reflected in the press release. Therefore, Review WG has had some
difficulties with pinning down
its own charter yet. Instead, Review WG started with the core issues such as
"Constituencies".

Compared to normal lifetime of Working Groups, NC's decision to let Review
WG have less than
one month working days is awaiting NC's reconsideration for its extension.
NC should remind itself
of how hard to garner responses from constituencies and GA when NC appealed
each group to
submit its position.

Right now Review WG has referred to Terms of Reference version 0.3 which was
also presented to
NC before Dec NC teleconference. However, given the assumption that NC is
going to extend Review
WG's working days, Review WG is needed to finalize its own Charter as soon
as possible.

d) NC Review Task Force Questionaire was circulated with sub-titles on Dec.
28.

As requested by NC, Review WG first started with NC Review TF's
questionaire, which was distributed
to the list with 10 sub-titles to facilitate discussion. However, out of ten
the most hottest issue is
3. [Constituencies] namely DNSO Structure itself. They are 1.[Charter] 2.
[Outreach] 3. [Constituencies]
4. [GA] 5. [Working Group] 6. [Secretariat] 7. [names Council] 8. [WGs and
NC] 9. [DNSO Quality]
10.[The Board and DNSO]

In addition to 10, another four topics have been updated by WG members such
as 11. [IDNH],
12. [STLD] 13.[DNSO/GA Chair Election] 14. [By Consensus]

The second spotlight went to Names Council since NC's roles in the
decision-making process can be
functioned as either lubricant or blockage.

Big demands on "clarification" in the mailing list show us the fact that
there have been lack of communication
in DNSO i.e. between the Board members and DNSO stakeholders, between NC
members and DNSO
stakeholders, between NC members and Board members, and between DNSO
stakeholders themselves, too.

e) Polls and Review WG Co-Chair Election has been being carried out by
Review WG

Four topics have been polled by WG members under Greg Burton's volunteer.(As
of Jan. 13)

The poll for 14. Consensus is now published at
http://www.pollcat.com/tzk24p05h3_a
The results are at http://www.pollcat.com/report/tzk24p05h3_a

The poll for 7. Names Council is now up at
http://www.pollcat.com/tzk24l3plu_a
 The results are at http://www.pollcat.com/report/tzk24l3plu_a

The poll for 3. Constituencies is still at
http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a
with results at http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a .

The poll for 4. GA is still at http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p41u8xq_a
with results at http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p41u8xq_a .

Straw Poll on Review WG needs more time was carried out with unaimity by 20
members whose result
was circulated in the Names Council list on Jan 5 with options such as
Option A, Feb 20 : 8 members
Option B, March 4 : 10 members Option C: member's own independent suggetion
2.

Working Group Co-Chair election
Co-Chair Election with four candidates has been being carried out by Review
WG members under
J J Teernstra's volunteer expecting its result until January 15th.

3. Main DNSO-related Discussion Issues from Dec. 23 until Jan 14.

Regarding issue presentation, it would be more neutral to submit different
people's perspective in the appendix
rather than describing each issue by myself which can lead to some biased
views.

a) Do we need Constituency?

b) Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?

c) How to add new Constituencies?

d) Consensus, is measurable in the decision-making process?

e) Who is going to pay?

4. Proposal to Review TF and NC

a) Proposal to Review TF

As soon as this report is delivered to Review TF, Review TF members are
expected to participate in
Review TF's report which should outline TF members' consensus. Since Review
TF has four working
days to come up with report on Jan 19th, if it is needed, Review TF may have
a teleconference to reach
their own consensus.

b) Proposal to NC

As emphasized earlier, NC is recommended to reconsider extending Review WG's
working days.
Therefore, Jan NC teleconference is expected to exchange NC's general views
based upon half-done
NC Review TF report which still awaits Review WG's bottom-up
consensus-building process.

Without substantial consensus-building process efforts before NC, NC's
recommendation to the Board
is going to be empty voices which have no legitimacy nor mandate. NC needs
to reaffirm the fact that
without constituency and its members, NC is meaningless get-together.

5. Outlook of Review WG

a) Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15

========================================
Feb 9 - 14.  Review WG Position Paper Submission
Feb 14 - 19 Review WG Position Paper Comment Period.
Feb 20         Review WG Position Paper Delivered to NC
========================================

b) First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting

March. 9, Friday or 10, Saturday

c) Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting

June

--
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