<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[wg-review] [Version 0.2] Executive Summary [Part I]
Review Working Group's Executive Summary
version 0.2
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 TF Questionaire was circulated with sub-titles on Dec. 28.
e) Review WG Co-Chair Election and its Result
3. Discussion Issues from Dec. 23 until Jan 14.
a) What is DNSO Doing?
b) DNSO Needs Reformation.
c) Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
d) New Constituency
e) Consensus, is measurable?
f ) The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix 1] Jonathan Weinberg's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 2] Various Poll Result Surveyed by Review WG
[Appendix 3] Karl Auerbach's Comment on Eliminate the Constituencies
[Apeendix 4] Joanna Lane's proposal of IDNH Membership
[Appendix 5] Milton Mueller's Concerns on DNSO Review
[Appendix 6] Bret Fausset's Proposal to Create New Constituecny Procedure
[Appendix 7] Adam Peake's Report on NCC's Outreach
[Appendix 8] registrar.com's Position on DNSO Quality
=====================================================
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 TF 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 122
unsubscribers who are conjectured as At-Large members who have little
experience
and knowledge with DNSO.
FYI, there are 8 NC members: Peter de Blanc, Elisabeth Porteneuv(ccTLD),
Ken Stubbs, Erica Roberts(Registrar), Philip Sheppard, Theresa
Swinehart(Business),
Axel aus der Muhlen(IP), YJ Park(Non-Commercial) - therefore, six
constituencies'
representatives are on the Review WG list except ISP constituency - 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.
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
Mails in Archive: 1249 (As of 2001 Jan 13 15:34:34 Central European Time)
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 A,
B, C
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".
Therefore, outreach is still left with big challenge in the DNSO/ICANN.
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 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 TF 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] Note: Its outcome is expected to come out on Feb. 20
2. [Outreach] Note:Adam Peake provided outreach report on NCC[Appendix
7]
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
11. [IDNH]
12. [STLD]
13. [DNSO/GA Chair Election]
14. [By Consensus]
15. [DNDEF] Domain Name Definition
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) Various Polls - whose result has been provided in the [Appendix 1] below
and
Review WG Co-Chair Election has been being carried out by Review WG.
Jan 1 - Jan 5 : Candidate Nomination
Jan 6 - Jan 10 : Campaign
Jan 11 - Jan 14 : Election
Jan 15 : Formal Announcement of Review WG Co-chair
Co-Chair Election with four candidates has been being carried out by Review
WG members under J J Teernstra's volunteer expecting its result on January
15th.
3. Main DNSO-related Discussion Issues from Dec. 23 until Jan 14.
a) What is DNSO Doing?
After 20 months' DNSO Testbed since Berlin ICANN meeting in 1999 May,
many people have been wondering what is the role of DNSO in the ICANN?
There have been five Working Group processes which have made WG members
feel useless in the consensus building process and demotivated by the fact
that
Names Council is not ready to perform its designated responsibilities
described
in the ICANN bylaws. This deep dissappointment has been well expressed by
one of former WG Chairs, Jonathan Weinberg's earnest report.[Appendix 1]
b) DNSO Needs Reformation.
NC should pay attention to the poll result done by Review WG that 97 %
people
responded YES. [Appendix 2] Some including one of At-Large Board Director,
Karl Auerbach recommend to eliminate "Constituency" structure itself, which
has
not been working out in the DNSO.[Appendix 3]
However, Review WG has to make various approaches to current DNSO structure
due to the NCRTF's questionare which has forced WG members to answer to the
questions and to make WG members face the current issues which can be solved
by
Clean Sheet approach from WG members' perspective.
Therefore, as some complained, to discuss almost more than 15 different
topics
at the same time have caused WG members lots of confusion and missing focal
point
from time to time, which I feel sorry for as designated Chair of Review WG
by NC.
c) Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
Despite its bewildering situation caused by WG timeframe controversy and
some
members' lost belief in Review WG's impact on future policy implementation
process,
Review WG members have strive to solve the issues DNSO confronts.
Many point out that the current constituency structure is imbalanced. This
concern
is well noted in Milton Mueller's note # 2 [Appendix 5]. To heal this
imbalance,
WG members suggested several constituency models such as IDNH/O or Small
Business Constituency, or TM owners Constituency etc.
d) New Constituency
The most visible and audible demand from Review WG apart from "Drop the
Constituencies" is to recognize "Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners" in
the Internet Policy-making process since its beginning. There have been
counter-
argument that individuals can be represented through At-Large which will
result in
duplicated representation in the ICANN.
However, Karl Auerbach's comment on this issue has some valid points, too.
"If the logic that is being used to block the individual domain
name holders constituency were applied to the other constituencies they
too would have to be dissolved because they are, under the rubric of
that
logic, represented via the at-large."
In addition to such requests, from its early stage WG members including Bret
Fausset, the current WG D Chair together with Theresa Swinehart, discussed
the formal procedure to set up new constituencies. Here is Bret Fausset's
proposal to add new constituencies with formality. [Appendix 6]
e) Consensus, is measurable in the decision-making process?
And then some may ask how people are sure of such demand can be called
"consensus" which needs proper action by Names Council and finally Board.
What does "rough consensus" mean by exactly?
Therefore, WG members decided to make analysis on "Consensus" in itself
whose result is expected to be out in their first report on Feb. 20.
f) The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say
This issue sounds hot potato which was not directly mentioned in the
questionaire
and was not still included specific issues of WG members' own list. However,
this
is going to be undetachable issue whenever Names Council discusses DNSO
Budget, ICANN Budget.
Therefore, it would be also valuable for WG members to come up with workable
financial solution after their first issue-cracking stage. Regarding its
methodolgy
in Budget process, the necessity of more planned, more transparent and more
detailed document is well-described in registrar.com's position
paper.[Appendix 8]
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. To that end, Chair is expected to make every effort in consulting
with
every member of Review TF since this is small group composed of seven NC
representatives from each constituency, GA Chair and several observers.
Review TF has four working days to come up with report on Jan 19th,
therefore it needs to consider its extension until Review TF can get a
formal
WG report on Feb. 20.
However, Review TF sticks to its original schedule, it is reasonable to
publish
its interim report to the Board. Furthermore, to make the report more
agreeable,
Review TF is to have a teleconference to reach its 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 for NC to discuss
on Review WG's request for substantial working days for DNSO review.
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.
As for this coming NC teleconference on Jan. 24, I as Chair of Review WG
request
NC to invite Co-Chair of Review WG for more detailed discussion within the
WG.
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
Call by WG Co-Chair
Date: March. 9, Friday or 10, Saturday
c) Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
Call by WG Co-Chair
Date: June [TBD]
===========================================
[Part I]
--
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
>>>
|