[wg-review] Fw: [nc-review] reminder

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

FYI
===

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cochetti, Roger" <rogerc@netsol.com>
To: "'Theresa Swinehart'" <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>; <nc-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-review] reminder


> Theresa-
>
> Attached you will find comments from the gTLD Registry Constituency to the
> Names Council Review Committee.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
============================================================================
> ============================================
>
>
>
> COMMENTS BY THE GTLD REGISTRY CONSTITUENCY TO THE DNSO REVIEW COMMITTEE
> 15 JANUARY 2001
>
>
> The gTLD Registry Constituency submits the following comments to the Names
> Council's Domain Names Supporting Organization (DNSO) Review Committee
> regarding the operation and performance of the DNSO and its two principal
> organs, the Names Council (NC) and the General Assembly (GA), for the
period
> 1999-2000.  We would be pleased to amplify on these views at the
Committee's
> request.  Most of these comments focus n the NC and they are intended to
be
> pragmatic ideas on how to improve its performance.
>
> We believe that the DNSO in general and the NC in particular have
performed
> below their potential for the evaluation period.  When these organizations
> were originally planned, it was widely assumed that the NC would be the
> principal focus within the Internet community and within ICANN of both
> expertise and of consensus-building in the area of Internet domain names;
> just as the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and the Protocol
> Supporting Organization (PSO) are focal points within their respective
areas
> of competence.  Instead, the NC appears to have been more focused on
> procedures, administrative practices, and matters that are more related to
> its own process than to substantive matters.  To the extent that the NC
has
> not fully performed its substantive responsibility to develop consensus in
> the area of domain names, other ICANN organs and other bodies have been
> required to step in.
>
> To some extent, the NC's interest in procedure is understandable given
that
> it was newly-created in 1999 and thus has had to establish altogether new
> procedures on virtually everything.  Moreover the constituency-based
> structure of the NC ensures some degree of internal tension, which itself
> ensures that every proposal from any one constituency is examined with
> skepticism by at least one other constituency.  Nonetheless, the extent of
> the NC's focus on process and the scarcity of it's substantive
contributions
> to DNS-related consensus-development can not, we believe, be explained
> entirely by either its novelty or its somewhat adversarial design.  We
> believe that there are some institutional causes of the NC's
> underperformance, which should be correctable.
>
> Among the causes of the NC's under-performance are:
>
> **The DNSO has significantly less resources than its needs to do its job.
> No organization of the breadth and complexity of the DNSO and the NC could
> hope to perform successfully without dedicated, professional support.  The
> DNSO has operated almost entirely on volunteer efforts and a line of
> credit/donation extended to it from AFNIC.  This under-funding distorts
> nearly everything about the DNSO.  Most importantly, it ensures that the
> pure level of competence of its work is jeopardized. A bad situation has
> been made worse by the casual manner in which DNSO dues are sometimes
> treated by some Constituencies, who pay their dues partially, late, or not
> at all.  (Note that Constituency members probably pay 10 to 100 times more
> in pure travel expenses to attend ICANN meetings than they do in DNSO
dues!)
>
> **The NC has attempted to act in plenary nearly all of the time and has
> delegated few, if any, of its responsibilities to subsidiary bodies (e.g.
> committees, etc.)  Any body with 19 members (soon to be 21) from six
> continents who use a half dozen native languages could not function
> efficiently if it attempted to do everything in plenary; even if it had
> unlimited resources.  Like any other such body, the NC must operate using
> smaller groups that can develop informal procedures, substantive
expertise,
> and efficient communications.  Such subsidiary NC bodies could become a
> focal point of the NC's consensus management process.
>
> **The NC's principal output is supposed to be the management of the
> consensus-development process and statements reflecting when consensus has
> emerged within the Internet community on matters relating to domain names.
> An Internet community consensus is not the same thing as a vote among all
> those who show up for an open discussion group.  Open discussion groups
can
> play a valuable role in identifying perspectives, educating on the issues,
> and even identifying areas where perspectives appear to merge.  But the
> makeup of an open forum is basically a result of who has the time and
> inclination to show up at any given moment.  And those who do are not
> necessarily in a position to reflect a consensus of the Internet
> community...by any reasonable estimation of who is "the Internet
community."
> In this sense, the activities of open fora  --particularly voting--
should
> be viewed as valuable intellectual inputs into the consensus development
> process; but they can not be presumed to be the consensus-development
> process itself.
>
> **The NC needs to develop approaches that will minimize the amount of
> subjectivity and increase the amount of measurable objective criteria in
the
> consensus-building process.  This should result in clearer direction for
the
> NC, for working groups, for committees and for Constituencies. It should
> therefore make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role of
> managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
increased
> confidence throughout the Internet community. In particular, the NC should
> adopt policies that facilitate the submission of proposals by
Constituencies
> and GA participants and that help the NC itself evaluate such proposals
once
> they are submitted. It should provide reports to Constituencies and
evaluate
> feedback on those reports that is received from Constituencies. The NC
> should, without the benefit of ICANN Board mandates, create timelines for
> various consensus-building activities and it should develop guidelines  to
> be used by working groups and committees in their activities.
>
>
> Finally, it seems that Constituency members of the NC may have greater or
> lesser leeway to act from their respective Constituencies.  If a
> Constituency NC member feels that they have little leeway to participate
in
> an NC consensus-development effort, however, then that NC member will tend
> to shy away from substance until they have had an opportunity to fully
> consult with their constituency.  This further consultation with the
> Constituency could take days, weeks, or even months.  In this sense, many
> DNSO Constituencies seem comfortable permitting their NC representatives
act
> freely on matters of procedure but reluctant to permit them to do so on
> matters of substance.  Constituencies should better organize themselves so
> that their NC members come to NC meetings with a greater sense of
confidence
> that the member knows what their Constituency wants.  Such NC members can
> therefore act with fewer further consultations.  This may require
> Constituencies to conduct consensus-development activities of their own,
> such as internal Constituency workshops.
>
>
>
============================================================================
> ================================================
>

--
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