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

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

I'm back.

I have a few points.

I'd like to see if I can `wrap' this around the Recommendations, but I have
some questions and we don't have much time.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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.

I think it would be nice to have specific references.  Also, do you mean to
exclude individuals who do not own domains?  I think it would be good if we
could get away from the term "domain holders", as much of what you cite is
actually specific references to individuals. (as is evidenced by the quote
soon following from the White Paper...ktl)

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

Question: why jump from the Green to the White?  Should we not perhaps
include White with Green (and any other colour of the rainbow), right in the
first sentence?

> "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.

Can we say "individuals constitute an outspoken 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.

Can we really make this statement without specific references?

> 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.

Again, can we sub "individuals" for "idnh's"?

> 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.

"Individuals"?

> 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.

I don't like this "Cause", it rankles...  Can we leave this out?

> 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.

I'd like to work this into the recommendation for a Secretariat, if I may.

> 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.

Do we want a Committee or WG?  Committee sounds as if its appointed.  WGs are
called for...

Your thoughts, please.

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