Re: [wg-review] DNSO Study

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 18:06 10/04/01 -0400, babybows.com wrote:
>Posted to the public forum:
>
Dear Danny,

Obviously your posting was not on impulse. Could you not have discussed
this with us WG members (who might well have agreed with major parts of
what you are saying) before launching it just a few days prior to WG closure?
The fact that you are now GA-Chair elect makes it less of a posting of
just-an-individual.
A harmonious atmosphere between us all is essential. 
We have to discuss this and see if a consensus is possible.

I would like to ask Sotiris to formulate Polling Booth questions, which I
would like to put in front of us all.

My comments:

>I thank the ICANN Board for the opportunity to provide input regarding ways
>by which we may come to improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted
>today, and further appreciate the opportunity to provide suggestions which
>may result in changes in the structure of the DNSO and/or major changes in
>its functioning.  Having been a participant in the Review Working Group, I
>am appreciative of the concerted effort that was made to respond to the
>Board's request for a general review of the DNSO, and I look forward to
>seeing the final report of this working group.

O.K.  We are working on this.

>     My concern is that while ample time and resources were dedicated to the
>first phase of the review project (ten months to determine the diagnosis),
>limited time (5 weeks) has been allowed for the most important phase of the
>project (solutions).  It is my humble opinion that a more comprehensive
>study is called for, as the possible restructuring of a Supporting
>Organization is not a matter to be taken lightly.  

Hmm. The supporting organization has been largely bypassed so far........

To the same degree that
>the at-Large study required full and proper funding, as well as a
>blue-ribbon panel of committee members, so too should a study regarding the
>future of the DNSO be properly convened with ample resources, well-respected
>committee members and an appropriate timeline in which to complete its
>mission.
>     I propose the following:  an initial committee consisting of the
>current and former chairs of the General Assembly, the current and former
>chairs of the Names Council, the chair of the Review Working Group, the NC
>Liaison to the Review Working Group, the Chair of the Review Task Force,
>ICANN legal counsel, and the Head of the DNSO Secretariat.  This Committee
>shall act upon the findings of the review process and propose necessary
>changes.

With this composition, I'm afraid you'll just get the status quo.

>     The draft report of this committee shall then be submitted to an
>independent panel for rigorous review (by experts who are anonymous to the
>committee and which shall be selected by the ICANN Board).  

The composition of this independent panel may well go the way of Linda
Wilson's "Independent Review Panel" (for Board decisions) i.e. nowhere.

Upon conclusion
>of this review, the committee will then respond to the panel's
>recommendations with appropriate revisions, and finally submit a
>consensus-based report for public comment prior to submission to the ICANN
>Board.
>

But who's consensus then , in the end?


>Thank you for your consideration,
>Danny Younger
>
Perhaps you have read one of my more disillusioned postings to idno-discuss
 "Bottom-up, the final illusion" :-(
I realized that self-organizing is all very fine, but it still requires
leadership to get anywhere.
If your private  posting, copied here,  is an act of leadership, let us
have a brief discussion and a poll and see if the WG is willing to follow.
There may be very little time left to defend the premises of this proposal.
Did you propose this because you realize that only a compromise like this
will get us anywhere?






--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
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