Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:03
AM
Subject: [wg-review] Proposal draft (Part
1)
Dear All,
I am posting a first part of the
proposal draft for your perusal and comments. The hour is late,
and I am tired. I will post the rest on the
morrow.
Sincerely,
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Working Chair WG-Review
Preface
This document is not
intended to reflect a set of consensus-based policy recommendations founded on
unanimous compromise between all active participants within the
WG-Review. Nor does it reflect a
consensus defined in terms of a 2/3 formulation based on the number of
participants in a vote. Instead,
the origin of this report lies in the generally unanimous acknowledgement of
problems within the current Domain Name Support Organization (“DNSO”), with
respect to its conception as outlined in ARTICLE VI-B of the ICANN
Bylaws. Estimates of the degree
of impairment of the DNSO among members of WGr vary, but broadly speaking, a
general consensus largely cedes the problematic character of the body to some
extent. Indeed, the very issuance
of the ICANN Board of Directors’ Resolutions 01.28 and 01.29* verifies the
Board’s (“BoD”) assessment of the deficient nature of the DNSO, and
underscores the need for substantive proposals and recommendations for
remedying any identified shortcomings or flaws in the DNSO. As a result, this paper will include
proposals by members of the WGr with respect to certain perceived DNSO problem
areas, and is therefore not intended as an exhaustive or adequate reflection
of the WGr as a whole.
*Resolutions of the BoD as
mentioned above:
[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and other sources
to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the DNSO as
it is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure
of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
[Resolution 01.29] The
Board encourages input related to changes that improve operations of the DNSO
as it is constituted today no later than April 16, 2001. Further Board action
on the basis of that input will be scheduled at the end of that
period."
Terms of Reference
For the purposes of this report, let it be
noted that the Board is understood to be requesting two distinct categories of
proposals. In the first instance,
there is a request for proposals/recommendations that improve operations of
the DNSO as it is constituted today.
This category of proposals appears to reflect the need for a temporary
`quick fix’ for short-term purposes only. Secondly, the Board is understood as
further requesting proposals/recommendations, which may result in changes in
the structure and process of the DNSO and/or involve major changes in its
overall function for the long-term.
DNSO
The DNSO is responsible
for advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the
Domain Name System. The DNSO
currently consists of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting of
representatives of constituencies as elected by the “Constituencies” described
in Section 3 of ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B ("Constituencies"), and (ii) a
General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and
entities. It is important to note
that the GA includes, but is not limited to the established “Constituencies”
of the DNSO.
Issues and
Recommendations
A) Consensus
Management
Responsibilities of the NC
include the management of the consensus building process within the DNSO. The NC is required to adopt such
procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out that responsibility,
including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working
groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry
out the substantive work of the DNSO.
With respect to the NC
management and oversight of the consensus building process of the current
DNSO, it has been generally remarked that there is no clearly defined
consensus mechanism, thereby resulting in confusion, frustration and
disappointment for many members of the various groups and entities
subsumed/mandated within the GA.
One clear example of this contention among the membership of the WGr is
the following comment:
“One of the central
problems with the consensus building process -- and we discussed this issue
in WG-D with no resolution -- is the fact that there is no mechanism that
encourages any party to compromise.
What we've seen in the
DNSO to date are various interest groups putting forth party-line positions
to the WGs, the NC, and the Board. There has been virtually no attempt to
forge consensus or seek compromise among the participants themselves. While
the NC and Board are supposed to "recognize" consensus among the
participants, they have too often been left to act as judge of how best to
balance competing interests.
When the Board or NC
judges the merits of competing proposals, it only compounds the problem. The
participants quickly learn that they need not speak directly to those who
oppose them -- only to those who will judge them. Position papers have
become the end product, not the starting points for a dialogue about how to
reach compromise.
In the current
structure, there is really no one to *broker* a compromise.
"Peacemaking" is time-intensive work. Who is going to run shuttle
diplomacy among the various constituencies and interested parties, honing
draft policies until they really reflect a consensus? Is that the WG Chair's
responsibility? The NCs? Is it unrealistic to expect volunteer participants
to shoulder this task?
It's also not clear that
there is any incentive for some to compromise, even if we solved the
problems noted above. In other industry self-regulatory schemes, there is
the threat of unilateral action by the government regulator if the community
does not take some action. The resulting uncertainty about what the
regulator may do prompts the community to come together to present a
consensus position.
In our case, however,
ICANN cannot act absent community consensus. This removes the threat of
unilateral regulatory intervention in its entirety. Those who benefit from maintaining
the status quo have absolutely no incentive to compromise,
ever.”
-Original Submission by
WGr member Brett Faussett:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00116.html
-For supplemental
references on this topic see:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00124.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00198.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00581.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00645.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html
There are many more
examples of evident confusion as to the nature of “consensus” within the
current DNSO as managed by the existing NC model, and these can be made
available upon request. For the
purposes of a short-term remedy to the problem, the following recommendation
is based on the existing mechanism for determining community consensus within
the current Names Council itself (see Subsection D of Section 2, ARTICLE VI-B,
ICANN Bylaws).
Recommendation: In light of the confusion and lack of
reference with regards to what constitutes a “consensus” mechanism in the
DNSO, the formal adoption of a standard 2/3 definition of “consensus” is
recommended. This 2/3 formula is
proposed as a standard for the purposes of research or drafting committees, working groups and other
bodies of the GA, and should be based on the number of participants voting
within the respective groups. In
other words, assuming that there are 40 members on a given list and only 30
exercise their right to vote, then 20 would be considered a “consensus”. In the event of someone not agreeing
with the options provided for in a vote ballot, an abstention option should
also be mandated for any ballot, which option establishes participation in the
voting process without committing to any of the other alternatives. In this
way, a clear distinction between abstaining and not voting is
established.
B) Staffing/Secretariat:
To
date the NC (and the GA generally), have relied mostly on volunteerism for the
production, organization, collation, and distribution of all pertinent
documentation and other information relevant to the DNSO as a whole. A concern of many of the
members of WGr is the resulting inefficiency with regards to the easy
accessibility/availability and distribution of documents/ information
pertaining to the various purposes, processes, procedures and programs of the
NC, and the DNSO in general.
Also, concern has been expressed over a perceived lack of
responsiveness to general inquiries, and other requests for information and/or
(re)production of relevant material(s) and/or media. The following comment is a good example of such
sentiment:
"Motion: The number and the complexity of
the various printed and electronic documents the NC must produce and
archive has been identified as one of the difficulties in relating and
therefore to reaching a consensus with or through the NC. The WG-Review
therefore requests that the NC elects a Secretary among its Members, as
usually do the public bodies. His/Her duties will include supervising the
Scribe and the Staff secretariat on behalf of the NC, verifying that a
consistent and clear Subject composition system is respected for an easy
retrieval of the archives. No NC document will take effect without a prior
final approval of the Secretary signified by a leading mention in the
Subject. For the same reasons
it is strongly recommended that the same system is adopted all over the
ICANN. ICANN bylaws will be modified as appropriate to accommodate this
motion."
-Original Submission by
WGr member Jefsey Morfin:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01075.html
-For supplemental
references on this topic see:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00716.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00719.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00747.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01098.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03188.html
Generally speaking, there was a good deal of support
for a dedicated and smooth functioning secretariat for the DNSO among the WGr
membership. Indeed, such a
department is a key component in the successful functioning of any
organization, and the lack of it within the DNSO should be viewed as a serious flaw.
Recommendation: For the purposes of effective
ministration of the DNSO as a whole, it is proposed that a general secretariat
be established to serve both the GA and the NC respectively. This secretariat is not to be confused
or related to the internal secretariat structures of the various bodies or
entities (such as Constituencies) that make up the GA as a whole. Rather, the DNSO secretariat will
serve the purposes of organizing and responding to the information needs and
requirements of the DNSO as a whole.
For the purposes of timeliness, quality, and appropriateness of
any such efforts, it is recommended that the secretariat be founded on a
professional rather than volunteer basis. A proposal and budget for such a
secretariat should be a priority for the Board with respect to the
establishment of a consistent and smooth functioning DNSO, and it is
recommended that this suggestion be implemented as soon as possible, as it
will serve the interests of both short and long-term remedial
programs.
*******************End
of Part 1