[wg-review] Proposal draft

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

I still have to add some URL references and such, but opinions and
suggestions would be welcome folks...

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 Proposals

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.  In addition, it is
recommended that any formal proposals resulting from the 2/3 participant
vote “consensus” formula include any separate or dissenting
statement(s), provided they are substantive in nature and not simply
statements of agreement or disagreement.

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.

C) Representation

With respect to the overall representative quality of the existing NC in
terms of its relation to the current GA, it has been argued by many WG
members that the existing NC selection model is not truly representative
of a GA that includes, but is not limited to, the 7 existing
constituencies and all other interested parties subsumed within it.
Indeed, subsection B of Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B
explicitly refers to a “a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all
interested individuals and entities.” [Emphasis added]  To date, there
has been a good deal of discussion in the WGr regarding the amendment of
the current Constituency roll to include an Individual’s Constituency.
By and large, the general sentiment within the WG Review reflects
favourably on the establishment of such a Constituency.

According to subsection B of Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B,
the NC “shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with
Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency recognized by the
Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article.”
As the very language of Subsection B of Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws
Article VI-B tacitly indicates the genuine possibility of reviewing the
Constituency model by its reference to the 7 “initial” Constituencies,
it is reasonable to assume that some revision of the Constituency
organization was considered a very real possibility when the Bylaws were
framed.  Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the current
Constituency list was meant to remain without amendment ad infinitum.

Further, there was a considerable amount of discussion around proposals
for the dissolution of the Constituency structure altogether.  In fact,
a large majority in the WGr appeared to favour reorganization along such
lines.  Options discussed included the election of the Names Council
directly from the body of the GA itself.  Although this idea was indeed
popular, it represents a long-term commitment and perspective, which may
not be in order at this point, due to the still nascent nature of the
DNSO and ICANN in general, and the immediate need for representation of
Individuals within the DNSO.  A restructuring of the DNSO based on
dissolution of the Constituency Structure would take a good deal of time
and discussion, whereas the need to establish a voice for Individuals
within the current DNSO is immediate.  However, this discussion should
not be simply discarded, it should be revisited at a later point in
time, pending a review of a DNSO that included an Individual’s
Constituency (among others).

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board immediately begin
seeking proposals for the implementation and organization of an
Individual’s Constituency (“IC”).  Such proposals are not to be sought
from any existing ICANN organization or any other appointed
committee/group, including but not limited to the NC and any present
constituency within the GA.  Instead, in keeping with the spirit of a
“bottom-up” mandate and process, it is proposed that the BoD issue
notice that proposals for the IC may be submitted for consideration, and
thereby encourage the individual domain name holders to self-organize
and submit a proposal in a manner similar to the existing.

D) Outreach and Education

There was a great deal of discussion about the importance of Outreach
and Education of the Public, government officials, and other Users of
the Internet on Domain Name issues, among many members of the WGr.  By
and large, most WGr participants were in favour of such a program and
many pointed to existing efforts within the ccTLD Constituency, and the
Non Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency (“NCDNHC”) as good
examples of such efforts, particularly with respect to Multilingual
inclusiveness.  This, despite the fact that there is no specific proviso
for such activities in the ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE VI-B, and the further
point that the words “Outreach” and  “Education” do not even occur in
any part of the ICANN Bylaws.

Recommendation:  An effective and efficient manner of dealing with this
issue is for the BoD to implement a clause in Section 3 of ARTICLE VI-B,
that mandates the requirement for Outreach and Education efforts and
programs within each Constituency.  However, the specifics and
organization of such efforts should be left to each Constituency, in and
of itself.  In this manner, Constituencies will be challenged to find
effective means of constantly introducing new members, as well as
keeping existing members well-informed, thereby enlarging the overall
representation  of the Internet Community as a Whole (“ICW”) within the
DNSO.  This is a quickly implemented, and much needed long-term oriented
recommendation.


Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        hermes Network, Inc.

--
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