<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[wg-review] Comment on Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process
Comment on Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process
Due to substantial controversy over the charter and duties of WG-Review,
I've prepared the following timeline and comments about the process of
creating the working group. If there are any substantive omissions in this
comment, available from the public record, I apologize and would like them
included by reference. I believe this summary is accurate for the time
beginning with the NC meeting in Yokohama, through the Board's public
comment period at Marina Del Rey. It is unclear to me whether or not the
Board of Directors was ever formally notified that the Names Council had
NOT created a working group in that four month period
Part Two of this comment will address the period since November.
Sincerely,
Greg Burton
co-chair, WG-Review
Timeline and Creation of WG-Review.
---------------------------------
July 14, 2000 - Yokohama Names Council Meeting Scribe Notes
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/scribe-nc-071400.html
VI. Committee to Review the DNSO and its Functions
E. Cochetti: Create a new Working Group G with mandate to examine
the performance and operations of the DNSO since its inceptions and
to make recommendations by September 15 for improvement of the DNSO’s
operations. That the Council form a Task Force of one representative
from each constituency that receives the results of the Working Group,
take comments from constituencies, and undertake an evaluation of the
DNSO’s performance since its inception, reporting back to the Names
Council no later than October 1 (so the NC can make ICANN’s October 13
deadline).
F. Carey: Reverse the order? Start with a task force, then a working
group afterwards?
1. Cochetti: Task Force should begin its work immediately. Task
Force needs input from interested parties, hence the Working Group.
Need WG’s comments before TF finalizes its recommendations, so WG should
come first.
G. Stubbs: Finalize detail son teleconference in latter part of
second week of August.
H. Swinehart: Modification to proposed resolution. Should provide WG
with a methodology.
I. Park: Need to accelerate the timetable. Should have a formal
procedure and methodology, but also should be flexible.
J. Schneider: Amend the motion. Charter of Task Force and Working
Group should address the question of whether an Individual Domain Names
Owners’ Constituency should be added.
K. Vote: Passed.
----------------------------------------------
Comment: The NC clearly passed a motion to create a Working Group first,
and then a Task Force. Note particularly Mr. Cochetti's statement that the
WG was needed for input.
The Next day, at the ICANN BoD Public Forum:
------------------------------------
July 15, 2000 - Yokohama
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/archive/scribe-icann-071500.html
G. DNSO Report – Ken Stubbs
1. GA supports establishment of an additional constituency of
individual domain name holders. Suggest establishment of working group plus
a task force with one member of each constituency. Hope for rapid
resolution of the issue.
2. Review of DNSO – need to work closely with Executive
Committee of the Board.
.......
8. Wong: Working group to address the DNSO Review process
should be helpful. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------
Comment: Vice Chairman Wong clearly indicates interest in the Working
Group, and doesn't mention the Task Force. The NC was clearly committing to
the board that a WG would be created.
Now let's jump ahead two months into the middle of September. First, a post
to the nc-review task force list
--------------------------------------------------------
Post from Theresa Swinehart - September 11, 2000
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00022.html
.... having in mind the many comments that were exchanged on the working
group (which I understand the ga discussions
is?
--------------------------------
Comment: Clearly the NC did not create a working group with methodology. If
you will notice, the modification to the original resolution to include
"with a methodology" was made by Ms Swinehart.
Oddly enough, the minutes of the NC teleconference from September have this
comment:
-----------------------------------
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00365.html
"Roberto Gaetano questioned whether a Task Force rather than a Working
Group should prepare the Review report. He indicated that such a choice is
not responsive to the GA's motion in Yokohama calling for creation of a
Working Group and subsequent decision to merge the issue of Constituency
for Individuals into DNSO review Working Group. The NC discussed
this and decided to continue following the procedure the NC decided on in
Yokohama."
----------------------------------------
Comment: the resolution called for a Task Force AND a Working Group. I see
no record of the NC deciding to change that procedure. Mr Gaetano's comment
was, as far as can be determined at this remove, accurate. One wonders
where the decision to not create a working group is referenced. Even more
curious, the record from Yokohama shows the board interest in a WG report -
what Mr Gaetano's question calls for is a return to the resolution passed
and reported to the board. Calling the modified process that the Task Force
was engaged in "the procedure the NC decided on in Yokohama" seems wildly
inaccurate.
Several weeks later, on the General Assembly list we see:
--------------------------------
Post from Roberto Gaetano - October 3, 2000
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc05/msg00796.html
"For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a
formal WG on the subject."
-----------------------------------------------------
Comment: At this point, almost three months after passing a resolution and
reporting it two the board, the NC apparently had no intention of
implementing fully the resolution.
Two weeks later, back on the nc-review list:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Post from Roberto Gaetano - October 17, 2000
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00058.html
"No big reaction from the GA this time.
The only constant comment (on the list and in private) is the need for a WG
for the DNSO Review."
....
"BTW, I don't understand the reluctancy about a WG. Not to have created it
may have been a big mistake, because it creates further opposition."
-------------------------------------------------
Comment: Mr. Gaetano's post did not receive a public, threaded response
from ANY member of the NC.
Let's jump another month, to the meetings in Marina Del Rey
------------------------------------
Names Council Meeting - November 14, 2000 Scribe Notes
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400-2.html
V. DNSO Review: Swinehart
A. Request from ICANN Board to make recommendations on DNSO’s
structure, function, design. Task force created – one representative from
each constituency, plus GA Chair. Representatives sought advice from their
constituencies. Intellectual Property constituency responded, others not.
But most people occupied with other priorities.
B. Will notify ICANN that work is ongoing. Seek further responses
to assure representativeness.
...
2. Park: Need a WG to discuss DNSO review.
• Swinehart: Perhaps the GA could act as the WG? They’ve
discussed this before, and everyone is a participant there.
• Cochetti: Sounds good to me. Little difference between
creating a WG and relying on the GA.
------------------------------------------------
Comment: Apparently the Names Council has forgotten the resolution passed
and reported to the Board in Yokohama. If this is actually the case, record
keeping for NC decisions is sorely remiss. Mr. Cochetti and Ms Swinehart
seem unaware that attempts to make the GA function as a working group had
already failed, although Mr Gaetano had reported that a month earlier.
continuing...
---------------------------------
J. Swinehart: Need to extend Review Committee’s work to the first
week of the New Year given the challenges of winter holidays.
K. Stubbs: Concerned that certain constituencies haven’t
participated at all.
1. Swinehart: It’s been like pulling teeth to try to move
this process forward. Disappointed by the number of people participating in
this process.
----------------------------------------------------
Comment: Four months into the process, Mr Cochetti's comment in Yokohama
that the task force needs a working group for input seems prophetic.
The next day, Mr Stubbs reports to the ICANN Board :
------------------------------------------------
Public Forum - November 15, 2000
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111500.html
VI. Domain Name Supporting Organization – Ken Stubbs, Chair of Names
Council
D. Conducting comprehensive review of the DNSO. Not moving as
quickly as was hoped. Contributions from some constituencies. But other
activities in the last 60 days have made it hard to focus on this.
Anticipate output within the next 3-5 weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------
Comment: No apparent statement that the NC had decided to change the
process reported to the Board in Yokohama.
Regards,
Greg
sidna@feedwriter.com
--
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
>>>
|