[wg-review] To Members of the Board
Dear All,
Let me know what you think.
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Working
Chair, WG Review
********
To Members of the
Board,
The origin of this document lies in the Working Group Review’s (“WGr”)[1] general acknowledgement of problems within the current Domain Name Support Organization (“DNSO”), specifically with respect to the outline in ARTICLE VI-B of the ICANN Bylaws. Estimates of the degree of impairment of the DNSO among members of WGr vary, but broadly speaking, a general consensus largely cedes the problematic character and history of the body. Indeed, the very issuance of the ICANN Board of Directors’ Resolutions 01.28 and 01.29*[2] clearly verifies the Board’s (“BoD”) own assessment of the deficient nature of the DNSO and underscores the need for substantive proposals and recommendations for remedying any identified shortcomings or flaws in the DNSO. As a result, this paper will include proposals by members of the WGr with respect to certain perceived DNSO problem issues. For the present
purposes, let it be noted, that the Board is understood to be requesting two
distinct categories of proposals.
In the first instance, there is a request for proposals/recommendations
that improve operations of the DNSO as it is constituted today. This category of proposals appears to
reflect the need for a temporary `quick fix’ for short-term purposes only. Secondly, the Board is understood as
further requesting proposals/recommendations, which may result in changes in the
structure and process of the DNSO and/or involve major changes in its overall
function for the long-term.
Terms of Reference 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, numerous specific
references to individuals are made which clearly demonstrate the aptness of
their participation. 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".[3] Currently,
individuals constitute an outspoken, functional group within the GA. However, 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. There are a number of DNSO operational
failures that must be acknowledged and addressed by both the Board and the Names
Council ("NC"), if representation for individuals is to
improve. DNSO
The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN
Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System. The DNSO currently consists of (i) a
Names Council, consisting of representatives of constituencies as elected by the
“Constituencies” described in Section 3 of ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B
("Constituencies"), and (ii) a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all
interested individuals and entities.
It is important to note that the GA includes, but is not limited to the
established “Constituencies” of the DNSO. Issue 1) Representation:
With respect to the overall representative quality of the existing NC in terms of its relation to the current GA, it has been argued by many WG members that the existing NC Member selection model is not truly representative of a GA that includes, but is not limited to, the 7 existing constituencies and all other interested parties subsumed within it. Indeed, subsection B of Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B explicitly refers to a “a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and entities.” [Emphasis added] To date, there has been a good deal of discussion in the WGr regarding the amendment of the current Constituency roll to include an Individual’s Constituency (“IC”). By and large, the general sentiment within the WG Review reflects favourably on the establishment of such a Constituency.[4] However, the application process for the addition of new Constituencies is not clearly defined, which creates a significant barrier to entry, and defeats the prospects of those willing to give serious attention to a proposal. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that any progress is being hampered by disagreements as to what would constitute an appropriate process to add new Constituencies. According to subsection B of Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B, the NC “shall consist of representatives, selected in accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article.” Subsection D of Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B clearly states: (d) Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public comment pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may create new Constituencies in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation for a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names council and will consider any response to that notification prior to taking action. Further, as the very language of Subsection B of Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B tacitly indicates the genuine possibility of reviewing the Constituency model by its reference to 7 “initial” Constituencies, it is reasonable to assume that some revision of the Constituency organization was considered highly probable. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that the current Constituency list was meant to remain without emendation. It should be noted, that there was a considerable amount of discussion around proposals for the dissolution of the Constituency structure altogether. In fact, a large majority in the WGr appeared to favour reorganization along such lines. Options discussed included the election of the Names Council directly from the body of the GA itself. Although this idea was indeed popular, a restructuring of the DNSO based on a dissolution of the current Constituency Structure would take a good deal of time and discussion, whereas the need to establish a voice for Individuals within the current DNSO is immediate. However, this discussion should be revisited at a later point in time, pending a review of a DNSO that included an Individual’s Constituency (among other potentials). Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board
immediately begin seeking proposals for the implementation and self-organization
of an Individual’s Constituency (“IC”).
Such proposals are not to be sought from any existing ICANN
organization or any other appointed committee/group, including but not
limited to the NC and any present constituency within the GA. Instead, in keeping with the spirit of a
“bottom-up” mandate and process, it is proposed that the BoD issue notice that proposals for the IC may be
submitted for consideration, and thereby encourage the individual domain name
holders to self-organize and submit a proposal in a manner similar to
the existing. Issue 2) Input: According to
Subsection C of Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B, "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." This process is not being instigated by
the NC in a timely, nor definitive fashion, the WG-Review itself being one
example. The NC is required to adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry out its consensus management “responsibility, including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO.”[5] To date, the NC has failed to designate work to committees or working groups drawn from the GA to address a number of issues that have arisen repeatedly, including the call for an Individuals Constituency. Since the primary mission of participants of the GA is to take part in working groups, research, and drafting committees, this valuable resource is freely available yet underutilized. Recommendations: That the NC be encouraged to foster more inclusive participation for the membership of the GA. This includes the regular establishment of relevant work, research, and/or drafting groups that draw upon all interested parties within the GA. Issue 3) Consensus Management With respect to the issue of NC management and oversight of the consensus building process of the current DNSO, it has been generally remarked within WGr that there is no clearly defined consensus determination mechanism, which has resulted in repeated confusion, frustration and disappointment for many members of the WG Review.[6] Recommendation: Due to the general
confusion regarding what constitutes a “consensus” decision mechanism in the
DNSO, the formal adoption of a 2/3vote definition of the “consensus” standard is
recommended. [7] (This recommendation is based on the
existing mechanism for determining community consensus within the Names Council,
as per Subsection D of Section 2, ARTICLE VI-B, ICANN Bylaws). At the same time, it is recommended that
any formal proposals resulting from the 2/3 “consensus” formula also include any
separate or dissenting statement(s). Issue 4) Access: 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. 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 5: Oversight
The DNSO Review process is more than just the short-term diagnosis of a problem, and should be viewed as much-needed ongoing DNSO oversight process. This 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. Currently, an effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the life of WG-Review. This is a catastrophic "operational" failure. Recommendation: That the WG-Review (or a newly
constituted WG) be designated as a Permanent Review Working Group (PR-WG) with
the mission to: convene and continually evaluate the performance of ICANN's
Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) and, where necessary, to recommend to
the BoD structural or procedural changes to the DNSO that will help ICANN
fulfill its ongoing mission of operating as a global, bottom-up, Internet policy
coordination body. To carry out its mission, the PR-WG will submit a timely
report to the BoD that includes responses or comments from the DNSO
Constituencies and other interested parties. Issue 6) Staffing/Secretariat:
To date
the NC (and the GA generally), have relied mostly on volunteerism for the
production, organization, collation, and distribution of all pertinent
documentation and other information relevant to the DNSO as a whole. A concern of many of the members
of WGr is the resulting inefficiency with regards to the easy
accessibility/availability and distribution of documents/ information pertaining
to the various purposes, processes, procedures and programs of the NC, and the
DNSO in general. Also, concern has
been expressed over a perceived lack of responsiveness to general inquiries, and
other requests for information and/or (re)production of relevant material(s)
and/or media. Generally speaking, there was a good deal of
support for a dedicated and smooth functioning secretariat for the DNSO among
the WGr membership. Indeed, such a
department is a key component in the successful functioning of any organization,
and the lack of it within the DNSO should be viewed as a serious flaw. [8]
Recommendation: For the purposes of effective
ministration of the DNSO as a whole, it is proposed that a general secretariat
be established to serve both the GA and the NC respectively. This secretariat is not to be confused
or related to the internal secretariat structures of the various bodies or
entities (such as Constituencies) that make up the GA as a whole. Rather, the DNSO secretariat will serve
the purposes of organizing and responding to the information needs and
requirements of the DNSO as a whole.
For the purposes of timeliness, quality, and appropriateness of any such
efforts, it is recommended that the secretariat be founded on a professional
rather than volunteer basis. A
proposal and budget for such a secretariat should be a priority for the Board
with respect to the establishment of a consistent and smooth functioning DNSO,
and it is recommended that this suggestion be implemented as soon as possible,
as it will serve the interests of both short and long-term remedial
programs. Issue 7) Outreach and Education There was a great deal of discussion about the importance of Outreach and Education of the Public, government officials, and other Users of the Internet on Domain Name issues, among many members of the WGr. By and large, most WGr participants were in favour of such a program and many pointed to existing efforts within the ccTLD Constituency, and the Non Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency (“NCDNHC”) as good examples of such efforts, particularly with respect to Multilingual inclusiveness. This, despite the fact that there is no specific proviso for such activities in the ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE VI-B, and the further point that the words “Outreach” and “Education” do not even occur in any part of the ICANN Bylaws. Recommendation: One effective and efficient manner of
dealing with this issue is for the BoD to implement a clause in Section 3 of
ARTICLE VI-B, that mandates the requirement for Outreach and Education efforts
and programs within each Constituency (including multilingual services). However, the specifics and organization
of such efforts should be left to each Constituency, in and of itself. In this manner, Constituencies will be
challenged to find effective means of constantly introducing new members, as
well as keeping existing members well-informed, thereby enlarging the overall
representation of the Internet
Community as a Whole (“ICW”) within the DNSO. Thank
you for your time in consideration of this matter.
[1] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html [2] *Resolutions of the
BoD: [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. [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." [3]
http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm. [4] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00174.html [5] Subsection B of Section 2 of ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B. [6]http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00116.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00124.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00198.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00581.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00645.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html [*Plus many more available upon request.] [7]*Note: This 2/3 formula is
proposed as a proscribed standard for the purposes of research or drafting
committees, working groups and other organized bodies of the DNSO, and should be
based on the number of participants voting within the respective groups. In other words, assuming that there are
40 members on a given list and only 30 exercise their right to vote, then 20
would be considered a “consensus”.
In the event of someone not agreeing with the options provided for in a
given ballot, an abstention option should also be mandated for any ballot, which
option establishes participation in the voting process without committing to any
of the other alternatives. In this way, a clear distinction between abstaining
and not voting is established.
[8] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01075.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00716.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00719.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00747.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01098.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03188.html http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00293.html |