Re: [wg-review] Comments, second installment...

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Once again Mr. Crispiny your literary skills exceed this IDNH's ability to
mitigate your most poinant points.  But once again I fear that your all to
consistent logic is the undoing of your real point.

follow to the end and I will be specific

Kent Crispin wrote:

> Here is the second installment of my comments:
>
>                      Comments for WG-Review
>                      ----------------------
>
> The following are my suggestions for how to make the DNSO more
> effective.  With very few exceptions, these suggestions do not require
> any changes to to the ICANN bylaws, and can be implemented by Names
> Council directly.  Note that while I am a bit harsh on the Names Council
> in this document, I most emphatically do not mean this as a personal
> criticism of anyone -- I appreciate very well the difficulties the NC
> members have faced in the past two years.  Note also that this comment
> comes in two parts -- there is a separate document concerning the
> functions of Working Groups.
>
> Role of the Names Council
>
> The Bylaws define the role of the NC as "management of the consensus
> process".  I believe that this is a completely appropriate role,
> however, I also believe that the NC is currently doing a terrible job of
> fulfilling this role.  The fundamental reason for this failure is that
> while consensus indeed should come from the bottom up, management needs
> to come from the top down.  It seems to me that the NC has assumed that
> the consensus process will manage itself, but experience clearly shows
> that it won't, at least in the context of the DNSO.  [This is not to say
> that in other environments consensus processes couldn't manage
> themselves, of course.]
>
> So my first recommendation is that the NC must be *much* more "hands on"
> in the management of the DNSO.  This involves more work; some of that
> work should be delegated to an expanded secretariat; I also think the NC
> should consider the idea of creating an Executive Committee that would
> meet more frequently.  But individual NC members should take a more
> active role, as well.
>
> Much of the extra work for the NC would come from a different approach
> towards Working Groups.  The chaos of WG-Review is a painful reminder of
> WGs past, but I continue to believe that open working groups are
> essential for the DNSO, and indeed, as their name implies, need to be
> the primary place where work is done.  However, the past approach to WGs
> has simply not worked very well, and a different approach, it seems to
> me, is clearly needed.
>
> In particular, as described in the companion document on Working Groups,
> WGs must be seen as one of several tools in the over all processes of
> the DNSO, along with committees, task forces, studies, and whatever
> other methods the NC decides are necessary to fulfill the mission of the
> DNSO.
>
> Structural changes
>
> There are two structural changes that I think should be considered.
>
> First, to the extent that it is reasonable there should be greater
> commonality in constituency structures and procedures.  For example,
> the DNSO web site should have a central page where one can go to find
> out about joining a constituency.  Constituencies should have a public
> presence where queries can be made concerning membership standards and
> so on.  Internally, there should be common standards about what it
> means for a statement to be a "position of a constituency" as opposed
> to a statement made by some members of a constituency.
>
> As part of this, I think that measures should be taken to reduce what I
> called in another paper the "balkanization" of the constituencies.  Any
> progress towards achieving consensus is going to require that
> constituencies understand each others point of view, and to that end
> there should be structures in the DNSO that require cross-constituency
> cooperation.  I have suggested that there be a formal "observer" system,
> where constituencies have "observers" from other constituencies; some of
> the secretariat functions could be shared; the GA physical meetings
> could be used as commons for the constituencies, and so on.
>
> Second, it seems clear to me that there needs to be some formal
> representation of what I will call a "consumer interest constituency"
> (to avoid the baggage associated with various names that have come up,
> and to avoid any prejudices about "owner" vs "holder" vs "user",
> "individual" vs "organization", and so on).  Over the years there have
> been multiple calls for such a thing, in various guises (some of them
> made by me), and the need has not gone away.
>
> However, the inherent problems in such a structure have not gone away,
> either, so I don't think that it can just be another constituency.  The
> problems and conflicts that have come up every time one tries to
> organize bottom up suggest that the organization needs to come from the
> top down, at least at the start.  [It is interesting that one of the
> claims that has been made by proponents of an individuals constituency
> is that they have had to suffer an unfair burden in organizing bottom
> up, because, they claim, the other constituencies were all really
> defined top down anyway.]
>
> I have proposed several mechanisms for creating such an organization --
> in my comments submitted through the Non Commercial Constituency I
> described a scheme by which the GA could be morphed into such a
> structure, which has the advantage of gradual and controlled
> development; quite some time ago I proposed another approach, which you
> can see at http://at-large.org -- the basic idea is that the
> constituency would at the start be managed by an *appointed excom*, with
> elections following some time after the membership had reached a certain
> size and representativeness.
>
> However, there are too many open issues to make a realistic
> recommendation on structure at this point.  There are many issues that
> would have to be considered, including the effects of the creation of
> such an entity would have on:
>

> ED.           I completely disagree on this point it is very realistic to
> recommend what the wg is recommending.  The strucural changes are
> intelligent and well reasoned.

>
>   1) the GA (there is clear overlap -- perhaps the GA should be
>   converted into a general "intake committee" function, expressly for
>   the purpose of getting proposals the DSNO that otherwise would not
>   have a home);
>

ED.  Everything overlaps it is a good thing not a bad thing.  You have
imparted too often that ICANN is open to public comment on many levels this
is inconsitent with your other points.


>
>   2) the BC (in particular w/ respect to very small, individual
>   businesses); and perhaps

ED.  Once again the influence on this group would be positive.  It would
bolster there current diminimus position.

>
>
>   3) the NCC (individuals and consumers are non-commercial in nature;
>   many of the members of the NCC are there because they believe they
>   represent consumer interests, not because they have any particular
>   problems with domain names themselves).
>

ED.  Now there is a trend in this argument that clearly indicates that this
argument is tailored to prevent there being any shift in the power structure
at all.  This is a Red Herring.  It is the overwhelming consensus of the
opinions stated herein that the power structure must be changed from the
current status quo to the representation as required in the white papers, to
the true stakeholders, this position is innopposite of that and does not
reflect this groups hard work. " Maintaining The Status Quo - Now that is
drastic."

>
> So, as far as a "consumer interest constituency" is concerned, I have
> the following concrete recommendations:
>

ED.  This is a great Idea.  But it must not circuitously replace the
recomendations as set forth.  This is a bait and switch tactic.  It should
be bought but not at the expense of the wg recommendations.  This is a
Crispinian twist that was not on the discussion lists as such.

>
>   1) the Board should mandate that one be created;
>
>   2) that the problems that have evidenced themselves require that it be
>   created as a special case, probably in a top-down and carefully
>   controlled fashion;
>
>   3) that it not be created until the issues of its interactions with
>   other structures in the DNSO (GA, BC, and NCC, at least) have been
>   explored at some length.
>

ED.  It is not and has not been the recomendation of this wg to delay.  In
fact it is the exact opposite DNSO and ICANN must seize the hour.  There is
no need to explore interactions with other members of the family simply
adopt new constituencies in line with this groups recomendations and let the
existing model work out interactions, which are humanistic in any event.

>

Kents report is wonderful and well thought our and should be reviewed in the
light in which it is offered.  But as a counter I suggest to the board that
waiting to see if the shattered house will crumble is not wise while you sit
in it.  Do not study the cracks and the possibilities when the one certainty
is if you do not immediatley fixed it the foundation will be lost.  At least
immediately shore up the footing and implant the bracings that have been
suggested by this group.  You must not act too quickly but yesterday may
have been too late.

Sincerely,


>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard