[wg-review] Covering letter to WG-Review Report

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

This letter has now been posted to the ICANN public comment forum.

Anybody wishing to add their name to it may do so by posting a comment to
the link at http://forum.icann.org/dnsoreview1/

Regards,
Joanna 


To Members of the Board,

In the Green Paper, four principles to guide the evolution of the
domain name system were set out: stability, competition, private
bottom-up coordination and representation. In the White Paper,
specific reference is made to domain name holders on
numerous occasions, so clearly they are a factor in discussions.

In particular, Section 9 of the White paper, Competition
Concerns, states:-

"Entities and individuals would need to be able to participate by
expressing a position and its basis, having that position
considered, and appealing if adversely affected".

http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm.

Currently, individual domain name holders constitute a
functional group within the GA, but interested persons have
neither a mechanism for appeal, nor any way to voice their
concerns at a decision making level alongside other special
interest groups.

UDRP is one example where individual freedom is being
minimized and in turn, the interests of all individuals are being
adversely affected.

There are a number of DNSO operational failures that must be
acknowledged and addressed by both the Board and the NC if
representation for disenfranchised individual domain name
holders is to improve.

These include:-

Issue 1:
The application process for the addition of new Constituencies
is not clearly defined, creating a barrier to entry, limiting the ability
to succeed of those willing to give serious attention to a
proposal.

The status quo:
Progress is being hampered by disagreements as to what
would constitute an appropriate process to add new
Constituencies.

Recommendation:
WG-Review has outlined a model in its Constituency Report.
This is commended to the Board as an appropriate example to
follow. The proposal makes provision for a framework that would
be used for the addition of new Constituencies within the
existing structure of DNSO at this time, with particular reference
to individual domain name holders.


Issue 2:
According to Section (insert) of 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."

Status Quo:
This process is not being instigated by the NC in a timely
fashion. WG-Review being one example. The NC has not
designated work to committees or working groups drawn from
the GA to address a number of issues that have arisen,
including the call for an individuals constituency.

The primary mission of members of the GA is to participate in
research and drafting committees and working groups. This
valuable resource is freely available yet underutilized.

Recommendation:
Require the NC to foster more inclusive participation by the GA.

Issue 3:
Inadequate and unfairly restricted access to DNSO mailing list
servers and other communications tools/systems which allow
easy and effective participation in the DNSO for all interested and
useful parties and groups.

Cause:
Unknown.

Recommendation:
Allocation of ICANN/DNSO resources to provide ongoing ML
servers and/ or forum capability for new WGs and committees. A
minimum of 6 should be made available immediately.


Issue 4:
Ongoing DNSO oversight. The DNSO Review process is more
than just the short-term diagnosis of a problem. The process
also involves efforts at proposing solutions, efforts at
implementing solutions, and efforts at reviewing the relative
success of such implementation, including referral by the NC to
its Constituencies for comment.

Status Quo:
An effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the life of
WG-Review. This is a catastrophic "operational" failure.

Recommendation:
Extend the life of WG-Review or charge the NC with creating a
new and ongoing Review Committee.

Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.

Joanna Lane
WG-Review Member.
GA Member
@Large Member

Brian Appleby 
brianappleby@netscape.net
WG-Review Member

Luca Muscara
muscara@unive.it
WG-Review Member

--
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