<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[wg-review] [Final Draft] 2001. 1. 15 Report , Part I
WG members,
First, both congratulating Greg on your election result and
sympathizing with your big burden, I do request this group
to be more cohesive and focused on the missions under his
leadership.
This is final draft of 2001. 1. 15 report. Please, make comments
before it's too late. This report is supposed to be sent to Review TF
after around 12 hours or so from now on.
I guess, that will be midnight on Jan 15, in California time.
Thanks,
YJ
==========================================
2001.1.15 Report of ICANN DNSO Review Working Group
==========================================
To : Review Task Force/ Name Council
Cc : Name Council of Domain Names Supporting Organization
The Board of Directors, ICANN
From : YJ Park, Review Working Group Chair
Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
Date : 2001. 1. 15. Monday
Appreciating Name 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-designate, 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 24 working days
(From Dec. 23 to Jan 15) including Christmas and New Year Day. Especially,
those who have devoted themselves to rendering Review WG move forward
such as Joop Teernstra, Review WG Co-Chair Election Administrator, Greg
Burton, David Farrar, Jefsey Morfin and Sotiris Sotiropoulos who have run
for this election.
This is Review Working Group's status report as of Jaunary 15th as requested
by NC on 2000. Dec. NC's teleconference. The full Working Group's report
under newly elected Review WG's Co-Chair's, Greg Burton, leadership is
going to be submitted on February 20 which is awaiting NC's another friendly
decision this coming January's teleconference on 24th.
Therefore, it would be great chance for Name Council to invite newly elected
Review WG Co-Chair to NC's January teleconference to listen to its further
schedule and plan for Feb. 20's report during its topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
I. Review WG's History
The whole picture is well-described in [Appendix 17] provided by
DNSO secretariat as of January 14. Therefore, Review WG's progress
delineates its path from Dec 23 to date.Please, refer to [Appendix 10].
II. Issues to be Addressed
In proceeding this kind of consensus-building process through Working
Group model among those who have different background including
different level of understanding on the issues, different language,
different
culture which finally lead to different way of communication shows how
challanging it is to achieve "consensus" after hammering out its cons and
pros.
Firstly, the qualification or role of WG Chair so-called consensus-training
proposal is addressed in the group which has been stressed to manage 60
or so messages a day which made them feel they are in the middle of the
wilderness and this can be a valuable issue people have to look into with
seriousness not to repeat further regrets.
However, as untrained and uneducated on consensus-building process
and non-native English speaker, being DNSO Review WG chair tied up
with holidays, flight trips, etc.. for less than a month keeps reminding me
of the Janus's face in the "geographical diversity" or
"internationalization"
or "outreach".
Secondly, WG's legitimacy or mandate should be set with firmness along
with mutual trust between NC and WG. Out of lack of such trust, many
WG members from time to time go back to cynical nihilism which drives
them to form another faction in the group, which distracted the group's
whole effort to fumble through the goal in vain.
Thirdly, the willingness to cooperate or achieve is far most important.
Even though there is well-articulated rules are presented, if people don't
respect them, it is out of use. Therefore, community oversight can be
its initial alternative to redress such intentional destruction just like
primitive
age, which will be developed in the form of cyberlaw soon.
III. Review WG's Working Day-Extention Requested
What is the purpose of creating DNSO review WG? WG members are
supposed to present their own recommendation or position paper after
going through its own independent consensus-building process which
can be a criteria NC can refer to in its recommendation to the Board.
People can say NC can ignore or avoid what WG recommends with
reasons, the Board can ignore what NC recommends with reasons
based upon staff's recommendation or its own judgement. However,
it is non-sense to give no chance to WG to present its own consensus-
based final report when it comes to "Self-Review."
Review WG has kicked off since Dec 23rd and listed up various issues
which should be more specified and needs focal point in the future.
Review WG just passed by its first stage by struggling from issue finding.
From now until Feb. 20 will be very challenging schedule for them to
come up with measurable consensus position to the NC. However,
everything should pay the price. In Korean proverbs, there is a saying
that "a cheap thing will cost you dear."
IV. Ongoing Intensive Discussion
With Review WG's own chair elected by WG members, a full list of
issues accompanied by visible poll result, Review WG is expected
to present its report to the NC on Feb 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Content
[Section I] Is DNSO Well-Formed, Well-Functioned?
1. What is the Role of DNSO?
2. DNSO Needs Reformation.
3. Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
4. New Constituency
5. Consensus, is measurable?
6. The Relations between Funding and Rights to Say
[Section II] Proposal to NC Review Task Force
1.Consensus-Building Process Among Review TF is also Needed.
2. To Set Up Procedure within the Task Force is Urgent.
3. Review TF's Position is to Encompass Review WG's Consensus.
[Section III] Proposal to Name Council
1. NC, Is it Consensus-Building Lubricant or Blockage?
2. To Extend Review WG's Working Days
3. Specified DNSO Review-WGs are to be Formed.
- DNSO without Constituency Proposal
- DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
- DNSO Budget Proposal
[Section IV] Outlook of Review WG from now on
1. Future Timetable for Review WG after Jan. 15
2. First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
3. Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Section I] Is DNSO Well-Formed, Well-Functioned?
1. What is the Role of DNSO?
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 Name 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 report.[Appendix 2]
2. DNSO Needs Reformation.
NC should pay attention to the poll result done by Review WG that 97 %
people responded YES. [Appendix 1] 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 4]
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.
3. Is the current Constituency Structure Balanced or Imbalanced?
Many point out that the current constituency structure is imbalanced. This
concern is well noted in Milton Mueller's note # 2 [Appendix 6]. To heal
this imbalance, WG members suggested several constituency models such as
IDNH/O or Small Business Constituency, or TM owners Constituency etc.
4. 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
counterargument 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
message which emphasized on setting up due procedure for new constituencies
with formality. [Appendix 7]
5. 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.
6. 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 and possibly 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 9]
[Section II] Proposal to Review Task Force
1. Consensus-Building Process Among Review TF is also Needed.
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.
Therefore, it is reasonable for Review TF to publish its interim report to
the Board when Review WG group can provide its position paper.
Furthermore, to make the Review TF report more agreeable, Review TF
is to have a teleconference to reach its own consensus before its
finalization.
2. To Set Up Procedure within the Task Force is Urgent.
As member of Review TF, witnessing the decison or request of Review TF
comes from Chair prior to the consultation with members of Review TF
should be improved. To do that end, WG D is to present its final report
to the NC as soon as possible.
To operate this premature decision-making process in the NC without its
well-established set of rules might cause more serious malpractice.
Therefore, to propose a working model to the NC is more important than
to present the recommendations to the Board from the Review TF.
3. Review TF's Position is to Encompass Review WG's Consensus.
Review TF welcomes any input from both inside and outside DNSO.
However, not to be misled by any interest group, it is to have a session
to validate each constituency's position paper or contribution paper
by members of Review TF.
Every constituency paper is needed to show how many members
have participated in DNSO Review discussion through its own mailing
list and and have voted on that matter together with the number of vote
result. Otherwise, it is difficult to be viewed as constituency position.
Review TF report is out, the report should be vetted by members of
Review TF. Otherwise, it cannot be recognized as Review TF report.
.
[Section III] Proposal to NC
1. NC, whether it is Consensus-Building Lubricant or not?
Even though it has been difficult to define what "consensus" is, this group
has debated the role of NC in the consensus-building process. As shown in
[Appendix 19], NC is seen as constituted is an unnecessary structural
impediment to consensus. On the other hand, some parties still give weight
to NC that NC should manage the consensus process.[Appendix 3]
2. To Extend Review WG's Working Days
Despite that fact that NC itself didn't self-clarify what NC's role should
be,
NC as Consensus-Catalyst as it has been presumed in the DNSO, NC is
ready to reconsider extending Review WG's working days which has been
requested by WG members through many channels.
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.
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.
3. Specified DNSO Review-WGs are to be Formed.
As Kent Crispin pointed out clarity in his DNSO Review Comment,
the most effective way of WG operation is to let WG be as focused as
possible. Therefore, DNSO Review WG is recommened to be divided
into three groups each of which is supposed to come up with its own
recommendation to the NC.
- DNSO without Constituency Proposal
- DNSO with Established Procedure to Create New Constituencies
- DNSO Budget Proposal
[Section IV] Outlook of Review WG from now on
1. 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
========================================
2. First Review WG Physical Meeting in Melbourne ICANN meeting
Call by WG Co-Chair, Greg Burton.
Date: March. 9, Friday or 10, Saturday
3. Second Review WG Physical Meeting in Stockholm ICANN meeting
Call by WG Co-Chair, Greg Burton.
Date: June [TBD]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix 1] Various Poll Result Surveyed by Review WG
[Appendix 2] Jonathan Weinberg's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 3] Kent Crispin's Comment on DNSO Review
[Appendix 4] Karl Auerbach's Comment on Eliminate the Constituencies
[Apeendix 5] Joanna Lane's Proposal of IDNH Membership
[Appendix 6] Milton Mueller's Concerns on DNSO Review
[Appendix 7] Bret Fausset's Proposal to Create New Constituecny Procedure
[Appendix 8] Adam Peake's Report on NCC's Outreach
[Appendix 9] registrar.com's Position on DNSO Quality
[Appendix 10] Review WG's Chronology
[Appendix 11] Review WG's Members(Chair, "Leaders"/Editors,...)
[Appendix 12] Review WG's Co-Chair Election Details
[Appendix 13] List of Issues
I. Review WG's Charter Finalization
II. Ten Topics by NCRTF and Five Issues by Review WG
III. Rod Dixon's Issue List Suggested
[Appendix 14] Statistics on Email list
[Appendix 15] Procedure to Establish Consensus(By Dany Younger)
[Appendix 16] Joop Teernstra's Explanation on At-Large and InIndividual
Domain Name Owners constituency
[Appendix 17] DNSO Working Group Review - History in the Making
[Appendix 18] Procedure for Posting to the List (By Eric)
[Appendix 19] NC, Unnecessary Structural Impediment to Consensus.
===============================================
[End of Message]
--
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
>>>
|