[wg-review] Re:  DNSO Study

[brianappleby@netscape.net]

Dear Review WG Members:

I plea for calm heads at this important time.  We cannot afford to split ranks now!

Take a step back and think:

How to judge what we have done and what still needs to be done?  
What are the goals?  
What are the issues to address?

I believe there is little doubt that there is a strong consensus among the group (yes a vote at this time would be most useful) that the Sotiris proposal faithfully represents the general discussion of the group, especially in the last few weeks, but more than that as well.

There are a lot of problems to solve with the DNSO, some internal, some external or at higher levels of ICANN.  Does the DNSO work?  Is it being taken seriously?

The Sotiris proposal is not a solution, it is a very important step in the right direction.

I think it would be hard to deny that many on the group had their own favorite issues coming into the process and most share the feeling that an IC is very much needed.  Many have made great efforts in this regard before this WG was ever formed.  It does seem that the current proposal has a strong focus on this particular issue and there is nothing wrong with that at all.  It is a very good proposal and we all (2/3 at least) surely believe it is the key and most pressing issue for the BoD to address.  

Beyond that, there is much left to do and Danny Younger¡¦s proposal is also in line with helping to continue the momentum of positive change.  The details of the suggestion are certainly at issue, but I would guess the understanding of a need for further efforts to make improvements is a near-unanimous position we support.  The stuff I mentioned about US Congress etc. was also related to an effort, while the list is still active, to jumpstart the brainstorming of suggestions for the next phase beyond our current proposal.

Once again: 
How to judge what we have done and what still needs to be done?  
What are the goals?  
What are the issues to address?

Below one of the initial posts from the Review WG archives which listed some issues which do seem of merit.  We did not have time nor structure to fully address each one listed below in section 3.  We did do a very fine job in hitting the last issue listed.  

Again, do we have access to another IT majordomo/listserv which we can use to continue fighting the good fight without being necessarily DEPENDENT on the good graces of ICANN executives?



(excerpt begins)


From the archives of this Review WG:
URL source reference:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00002.html

[wg-review] We are in the starting line......
„h To: <wg-review@dnso.org> 
„h Subject: [wg-review] We are in the starting line...... 
„h From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com> 
„h Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:35:33 +0800 
„h Sender: owner-wg-review@dnso.org 

Hello Members,

This was drafted before Names Council(NC) teleconference
and it was provided as reference document to the NC before
Review WG is formed formally. 

Since Review WG is formed, it seems proper that this group 
discuss and finalize this terms of reference or charter. As we 
all know, there should be some changes in the timeframe of 
this WG and possibly others.

Thank you,
YJ

================================
                                                    2000. 12. 13
================================
Name of WG : DNSO Review Working Group
================================
Terms of Reference. version 0.3

1. Objectives of the DNSO Review Working Group

The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate 
the performance of ICANN's DNSO and to propose structural 
and procedural changes that will help ICANN's Domain Name 
Supporting Organization fulfill its mission of becoming a bottom-up 
policy coordination body. 

The DNSO Review Working Group's objective is to evaluate
the responses of DNSO stakeholders' and to vindicate that DNSO 
would be a structure that will include all of those who will be affected 
by the DNS of the future as well as the current Netizens.

To carry out its mission, Review Working Group will:

Answer to the Questionnaire of Names Council Review Task Force 
Review DNSO's responsibilities and its performance.
Develop recommendations for making DNSO function as designed.

<snip>

3. Procedures and approaches 
Review Working Group will explore the concerns listed below by online discussion mostly and if it is needed this group will organize a face-to-face meeting before or after ICANN meeting. These are issue list Review WG aims at making recommendations after its debates and discussion which will ameliorate DNSO/ICANN. 
* The role of working groups in the bottoms-up consensus process 
* The Names Council's functions and responsibilities 
* The General Assembly's function and responsibilities 
* Re-examine the relationship between NC and General Assembly 
* Relationship between NC and ICANN staff : Better identify which issues should begin with in the DNSO and which should be handled by the ICANN staff. i.e. 
* Define a better procedure for forming working groups and for making working groups productive. 
* The DNSO constituency Structure : Examine the structure and propose amendments that will ensure balanced representation of all stakeholder interests in an open, and transparent process. Amendments and changes to the existing structures and processes will be developed and posted for comment and discussion. 

<snip>

(excerpt ends)

Sincerely,
Brian A.
brianappleby@netscape.net
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.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