Re: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council
I touched on this briefly at Today's NC conference call in the context
of how thw Wait List Service Task force should work.
The original model of the DNSO (and the ASO and the PSO) in ICANN was
that the DNSO would create policy through a consensus process. It
required the DNSO to identify consensus. This it did via a two-thirds
vote of the consticuencies through their NC representatives.
_How_ the DNSO identified consensus beyond the voting method was never
clear. Public comments were clearly intended to play some roll, but
because individuals have no formal vote in the DNSO, there is no
requirement that any DNSO vote reflect the public comments. Nor was it
clear whether representatives to the NC voted their own opinions or only
formal, consticuency based approved positions.
Over the three years that the DNSO has been operative, a number of
approaches have been tried. What appeared to be emerging, prior to
Accra and the ICANN reform, was a model where the Names Council created
task forces to develop initial recommendations, witht he TFs taking
public comments into account but deciding recommendation by discussion
and formal vote among members. The NC then debated these in
consultation with their consticuencies, with different consticuencies
having different expectations for how closely the NC rep must consult
with the consticuency before taking action.
The most complete expression of this decision-making process was the
.org recommendations set to the Board at Accra.
ICANN reform and the Board's action at Accra changed this model
irreversibly. The statement that the DNSO merely offers "advice" that
the Board is free to take or not logically must shift the means by which
the DNSO acts. The DNSO becomes much less a policy body and becomes a
In the new model that has emerged since Accra, as playing out in the
transfers task force WLS discussion and seems to be enshrined in the
current blueprint approved in Bucharest, the roll of the DNSO and its
task forces is to provide a menu of suggestions for the Board to
consider, which chronicles the debate within the community at the DNSO
level. Thus, the transfer task force will present the NC with a report
that summarizes the public comments, the range of opinions expressed by
the constituencies, and makes several sets of recommendations. The NC
will discuss it, providing more fformalized feedback from the
consticuencies, and will forward this chronicle of the debate and
smorgasbord of recommendations up tot he Board. The Board, however,
retains to itself the right to determine any set of actions, even those
entirely inconsistent with the final DNSO report (presumably because the
Board has a greater sense of community consensus, since ICANN Board
decisions are supposed to be based on consensus).
In this new model, Board liason makes good sense. Since the Board is
the ultimate decisionmaker on policy, the sooner and more informed the
Board, the better. More importantly, it provides the Board with the
opportuntity to control the flow of debate from the beginning. Since
there is clearly no value in exploring pathways and policies not
palatable to the Board, no matter how popular they may be with the
consticuencies or the public at large, the Board liason can effectively
exercise a veto power early in the process and ensure that a carefully
guided debate provides suitable implementation mechanisms for whatever
outcome the Board prefers (or, at the least, prevent the development of
a consensus opinion the Board will reject as unpalatable or incosistent
with its goals).
Jonathan Cohen wrote:
> Noone in the ICANN 'family' has done more,spoken out more,worked harder or longer, or brought more committment and passion to the arena than you.
> I have watched with amazement for more than 4 years and still remember our 1st meeting in 'DC" where your knowledge and straightforwardness so impressed me (stunned may be better word)As you say,you and I and the Board may hold different views on issues of the moment but the Board as a whole and your DNSO Directors are committed deeply to a better ,fairer,open,relevant ICANN and that includes an effective Policy Arm the DNSO or its logical successor
> So I return the Thanks with respect and affection .We will share your thoughts with the whole Board and we remain available to work with,and listen to the DNSO.Alix and Amadeu share my feelings and both ensure that DNSO issues are heard at the Board and weighed in with due consideration.
> Part of the 'new' structure may be to adopt a practice I suggested 2 years ago to Esther...to have specific(logical) Directors assigned to liase directly with the various SO,s and Advisory Groups to ensure that all pertinent info and views (majority and minority) get to the Board 'accurately' and on a timely basis.This will also allow the 'community' to know where,to whom to direct their concerns ,facts,questions,lobbying etc ? what do you all think (southern style question!)