[wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Perhaps the difficulties that I am having with the recommendations of this
report stem from the different view that I have of what the Board is
requesting by way of its recent resolutions - as I understand their request,
they are first looking for suggestions to "improve operations".  Neither a
proposal to dissolve the Constituency structure, nor a proposal to add a
Constituency, is in my view a substantive "operational" recommendation;
these are purely "structural" recommendations.

What do I consider to be operational matters that could stand some
"improvement"?  First, our ByLaws indicate that "Constituencies or GA
participants may propose that the NC consider domain name policies or
recommendations."  I do not see a process in place that allows GA
participants to propose that the NC undertake consideration of such
policies.  On the GA list we discuss domain name matters, but rarely, if
ever, will participants have their issues considered by the NC as no formal
proposal-submission mechanism is in place.  This is an "operational" flaw.

Second, again according to the ByLaws, "If the NC undertakes consideration
of a domain name topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the NC shall
designate one or more research or drafting committees, or working groups of
the GA, as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall set a time frame for
the report of such committee or working group."  We now have the NC (in the
context of their Business Plan), considering domain name topics; yet the NC
has not designated committees or working groups drawn from the GA (whose
members' primary mission is to participate "in research and drafting
committees and working groups".)  The decision by the NC to circumvent
participation by the GA is a serious "operational" flaw that must be fixed.

Third, "Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a
body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to the
Constituencies for comment and consultation."  Upon having submitted the
work product of the Review WG to the Names Council, does anyone recall
having this product submitted to the Constituencies for comment and
consultation?  I certainly do not.  Where is there any evidence of
consultation with any of the constituencies?  Another "operational" failure.

Fourth, in the Public Forum discussions held in Yokohama, the ICANN Board
requested a "working group to address the DNSO Review process".   A process
is more than just the diagnosis of a problem, a process also involves
efforts at proposing solutions, efforts at implementing solutions, and
efforts at reviewing the relative success of such implementation.  An effort
taken to terminate the life of a working group (which has been charged by
the Board to address the complete process of DNSO Review), is a catastrophic
"operational" failure.

Fifth, the elimination of means of communication by the act of shutting down
a mailing list is an operational concern.  While the Names Council can
operate separate mailing lists for the benefit of a few committee members
(Outreach, Plan, Intake, Review, Budget, Council, Liaison7c), the GA is
restricted to a single list for all 300+ of its members, and now must have
its list traffic become even more congested as the Review WG list seeks to
find a new home for continued dialogue.  This is an "operational failure".

There are no provisions in place to allow for new members to join the
existing gTLD Constituency.  This lack of established procedure is another
"operational" flaw that serves to disenfranchise those already guaranteed a
place in the existing structure.

There are similarly no provisions to ensure that an existing Constituency
fulfills its own obligation to secure broad representation.  How many
members of the small business community (that register well over 80% of all
domain names) are represented in the Business Constituency?  This is another
"operational matter" that bears improvement.

With regard to the existing DNSO Secretariat, we are all in agreement
regarding the need for such services, and I believe we all agree that
professional services are indeed called for given the needs of our
organization.  What is not clear to me is why the Board should accept a
recommendation calling for the Board to fund this operation.  At present the
ByLaws call for each SO to be self-funding.  Why should the ICANN now be
required to fund that which has been our own obligation to fund.  If they
fund the DNSO, wouldn't they in turn be required to fund the Secretariat of
the ASO and the PSO?  Where are your compelling arguments?  To me, they do
not appear to be sufficiently convincing.  Please note that I do not
disagree with your recommendation; I simply do not believe that you have
effectively presented your case.

This working group still has an opportunity to develop needed
recommendations for "operational improvement"; the current focus, however,
has detrimentally shifted the attention to structural matters, and even
those recommendations that deal with Outreach do no more than propose a
change in the current ByLaws.  If you seek an "operational improvement" to
address Outreach and Education, consider the efforts of Pilar Luque who
writes, "I am preparing for a paper for approval from Mr Vint Cerf to be
dicussed during the Stokholm Public Forum with exact data on cost and
organisational needs for Language Diversity in ICANN working
procedures.  I am getting my data from sources such as the ITU, UN and
European Union Simultaneous Interpreting and Translating Depatments.  I will
post the results as soon as I have them ready."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00369.html  This effort typifies
what can be done "operationally".

If you seek to present a paper to the Board in answer to their resolutions,
please give then what they have asked for first - suggestions to improve
operations.  And please, offer something a little bit more substantive than
a mere wish list.  Substantiate your recommendations.   Until this is done,
the Board (IMHO) will not consider the balance of your recommendations
regarding future structural modifications.    More comments to follow
tomorrow morning.










--
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