[council] Review Task Force Recommendations
Dear Council members,
I am trying to better comprehend the implications of the Review Task Force
recommendations, and I want to make sure that my understanding is correct.
Under this proposal, a group of petitioners would present a request to the
Board to establish a new DNSO constituency, and the Board would then refer
the matter to the Council for their considered input.
As it is sometimes hard to envision in the abstract, perhaps we could use an
example to see how this would work…
Let's say that a large group convened calling themselves "Stakeholders
Thoroughly Ignored by the Names Council", a group that consisted of the
majority of the General Assembly and the bulk of the institutions represented
within the Non-Commercial Constituency. According to the Task Force
proposal, they would probably fill out some paperwork that looked like this:
1. What need would the proposed new constituency fill? --
"The membership would constitute a necessary balance in the Council ensuring
that the opinions of the General Assembly and the Non-Commercial Constituency
are not routinely being thoroughly ignored by Names Council Task Forces"
2. What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now
"The constituency would bring a commitment to respect the opinions of others
which is sadly lacking in Task Force reports that do not even cite minority
views or document the degree of reasoned opposition."
3. What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new
constituency share? --
"Constituency members would share the goal of eliminating the currently
dysfunctional and totalitarian Task Force approach."
4. How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the proposed
new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly and other
parts of ICANN? -
"It can be expected that there will be as much overlap as now exists between
the Intellectual Property Constituency and the Business Constituency - why
should we be any different?"
5. How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new
constituency be? -
"As virtually everyone (with the exception of a few Council members) believes
in the value of Working Groups in the ICANN process, the constituency will be
quite representative of the stated common interest."
6. What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of
representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency? -
"Unlike other constituencies that don't even have publicly-archived mailing
lists and only offer lip-service to openness, this constituency will actually
adhere to the ICANN bylaws. This constituency will not have a hierarchy, as
it prefers to "elect" its representatives rather than to "appoint" them
without a vote."
7. Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
recognition of a new constituency? -
"Sadly, there appears to be no other way to ensure that the comments of the
General Assembly and the Non-Commercial Constituency are recorded in Task
8. Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could
be fulfilled? -
"If memory serves, the Council was previously severely chastised with regard
to their initial Review Task Force report (authored by Theresa Swinehart)… I
believe it was described as vacuous as "air". Perhaps the needs of this
constituency could be served by having the ICANN Board continually reprimand
the Task Force Chairs."
9. What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
organise the proposed new constituency? -
"The proponents have assembled their very very large membership and have
already created a charter (which like the Charter presented by Joop Teernstra
at the General Assembly session in Montevideo won't even be acknowledged by
10. Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to command
the financial and human resources required by a constituency? -
"The constituency has more than a thousand members; each has committed $15
toward the goal of not having their positions routinely ignored by the Names
11. What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
seek support from existing constituencies? -
"The constituency believes that it is more important to secure the support of
all those constituencies that are still not properly represented in the DNSO,
such as small business and individuals - why should we attempt to seek
support from those that routinely ignore and refuse to document our views?"
12. What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing
"The existing constituencies might have to scramble to find new creative ways
to deny their peers a voice."
13. What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the finances
and administration of the DNSO? -
"The new constituency will be at least as financially responsible as is the
ISP constituency, the ccTLD constituency and the NCDNHC, and thus will pose
no new challenge to the Budget Committee. With regard to the new
constituency's impact on the administration of the DNSO… well, it can't get
much worse, can it?"
14. What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy
formation within the DNSO? --
"sorry, but we haven't noted any recent policy formation… perhaps you could
offer an example?"
After the Council has reviewed the answers to this above "questionnaire", it
will then offer its considered response to the Board enthusiastically
welcoming the new constituency to the DNSO… is that a correct understanding?