Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"babybows.com" wrote:

> 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.

For the record, the Resolutions read as follows:

[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*.[emphasis added]

It appears the Board is asking for structural proposals, after all.

[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."

One way, or the other, the BoD promises action.  If the only action we (as
Individuals)
wish to see is the immediate implementation of the IC, and the BoD ignores this,
then
a clear instance of violation of the White Paper and MoU will have been
instantiated and
documented.  And, I will be sending the final WG proposal to a number of
outspoken US
Senators, and the DoC, among others.

If we offer "improvements to the existing operations", they can simply reject
anything
beyond that, even though they explicitly requested more.  It would be a way of
legitimizing
their apparent "efforts" at reforming along a bottom-up mandate, without
actually reforming.
Why should we willingly offer such legitimacy?

> 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.

Perhaps you'd like to send your own proposal to the BoD?  I don't think anyone
in the WG
will have a problem with that.

> 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.

Well, the wording is actually open to interpretation, but nowhere is the NC
explicitly
bound to designate GA members, I grant that this is problematic. But, can you
point
out one instance where a committee or research/working group was formed that did
not
consist of GA members?

> 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.

Please contact my predecessor Greg Burton and point this out to him, as he was
responsible
for the Work you mention.  As for the current recommendations, they have not
been requested
by the NC, but rather by the BoD itself.

> 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.

No disagreement there... but the date has been set.  YJ park confirmed this for
me last night.
Her hands are tied as a rsult of the decision on the WGr reached during the last
NC telecon.

> 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".

Again, I agree, and I was working on adding a recommendation section on WGs (Rod
Dixon
is my witness on this, as I disclosed this to him in an email a couple days
back).  However,
the simple fact is that the WGr is run on DNSO servers, and the NC has the
prerogative
to terminate.  Of course, we can always move the discussion ourselves, as has
been
suggested by Joanna Lane, yourself, myself, and Kendall Dawson:
www.internetstakeholders.com
was created with this possibility in mind.

> 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.

Granted.  But this is not simply "operational", this one is political and is
beyond
the scope of a four or five day discussion (i.e. the time we have left in this
WG).

> 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.

Perhaps the initiation of movement on an IC, will spur the movement for other
Constituencies.  but we have to start somewhere, don't we?  (Nonetheless, I am
all for a Small Business Constituency, personally)  However, the issue was not a

topic of widespread discussion in the WGr to date, unlike the discussion around
the establishment of an IC which was voluminous.

> 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.

Nowhere do I contend that the Board should pay for the DNSO Secretariat.  In
fact,
I beleieve the DNSO Constituency Membership Fees could be put to use in just
this
instance... after all, what exactly *is* being done with those fees?

> 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.

A small matter, surely?  Such a change would be an improvement, would it not?

> 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".

Good for Pilar!  I wish him the best in his efforts, I'm sure we all do.  But,
to be honest
I am interested in your timing in presenting these issues.  I did send you
copies of my
draft proposal parts before they were posted to the List and you did not offer
any such
comments then...  I cannot help but wonder why?

> 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.

Please reread Resoltuion 01.28.

> 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.

Thanks for the encouraging words.  But where exactly are the substantiations for

your comments?  You cite exactly one URL in this post, and you provide
absolutely no
other evidence for any of the other points you make.  With all due respect
Danny, you are
not setting a good example.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Working Chair, WG Review


--
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