Re: [ga] DNSO Review - Questions on DNSO Responsibilities
My personal comments only....
At 09:31 03/10/2000 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>· To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A, B and
A (UDRP): Succeeded in creating the policy. Failed to provide a structure
for its modification after its behaviour in practice has been seen.
B (new GTLDs): Succeeded in expressing a minimal consensus (6-10,
evaluation). Failed in establishing a procedure for evaluating proposals
for those 6-10.
6 (votes): In form, yes.
>· Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an adequate
>consensus of the affected stakeholders? Have the viewpoints of all
>stakeholders been considered?
Adequate consensus: To the degree that there was an adequate consensus to
be found, yes. Has failed to prove that consensus can be reached when there
are strong conflicts between different stakeholders.
The viewpoints of all stakeholders have been aired. It is impossible to say
whether they have been considered or not.
>· Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of being
>timely and being structured with a degree of specificity/flexibility
>appropriate to allow practical implementation?
No. They have been unclear, limited and have taken a long time getting
produced. They have left far too much of the practical implementation
details to the ICANN board and ICANN staff. The root cause of this is, I
believe, the inability to reach consensus.
>· To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies, have
>they received the support of those being asked to implement them?
Yes (6-10 and UDRP).
>· Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to its
>attention through the Names Council?
>· Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?
Yes, and I don't know.
>· Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies, GA)
>and the relationship among them well defined?
>· How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the
>amount of objective consensus building, with its current structure? With
> a different structure?
Input into the process, an idea:
Abandon constituencies as a basis for reaching proposals. Go with groups of
named experts and open fora instead, leaving the constituencies with the
role of saying "yes" or "no" to finished proposals from expert groups.
>· Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed?
> If not, how can the degree of expertise be enhanced?
It has brought a great deal of shouting. It is not clear that this shouting
has been done mainly, or even to any large degree, by experts.
Some experts say that they cannot participate in DNSO open fora because
they do not have time or temperament to listen to the noise. If true, this
is a problem.
My answers only....
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, email@example.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html