[nc-review] Re: [council] review tf list

["YJ Park" <yjpark@aptld.org>]

Appreciating Theresa's works, I would like to remind that
there have been several inputs from some folks.

1. Diane Cabell, Clinical Program in Cyberlaw, expressed her 
interests in volunteering for research support for DNSO review.

=> I would like to suggest we accept Diane's volunteer expecting
     sometimes the the third party's perspective can be more
     objective and therefore we can reach achieve more.

2. Roberto and Roger expressed their concerns in DNSO council's
evolution into generalist body on the other hand ICANN Board
has expanded into experts body who has influential power in 
decision-making process with challenging questions such as

"How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed 
management of ICANN?"

"Are diversified companies best managed under a centralized or a
decentralized structure?"

The second question is very profound question which needs 
whole cybergovernance picture together with each member's 
philosophical background on cybergovernance.

Before I unfold my view on this, I would like to point out that
to compare the "cyber entities" which encompass from the companies
to the non-commercial organizations and individuals to "companies"
might bring the wrong conception in fumbling our ways.

Therefore, if I'll put it again to avoid the misunderstandings,
"Are diversified entities best managed under a centralized or a 
decentralized structure?"

Actually, the typical answer from the Business Schools are
"IT DEPENDS.":-)

It depends who serve as President or CEO.
It depends how the entity comprised of. and so on.

And here we finally came up with DNSO structure and 
it's time to put the appropriate substances into this structure.

BTW, sympathizing with those concerns by Roger and Roberto, 
I would like to specify this concern.

I. Retrospecting the NC's substantial works so far, 

    - DNSO Board election.
    - DNSO Working Group Report review: A, B, C
    - Teleconference/ Physical Meetings during the DNSO/ICANN

    Even in the reviewing process, what we have done was 
    confirmation whether NC can see the consensus on each 
    Working Group's Report delegating ICANN staff to implement 
    the specific schedules and policies and insulating ourselves with 
    other communications channels both consciously and unconsciously.

If we look at the Bylwas to remind ourselves regarding our mission,
-----------------------------
ARTICLE VI-B, Section 2

The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus 
building process of the DNSO

The NC is responsible for ensuring that all responsible views 
have been heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC.

Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a body, 
the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission 
to the Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report 
or recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work. 
------------------------------

What I have affirmed here was we didn't even try to do the third part.
That's how we ends up with the backlashes from the outside 
such as seat-claiming, vote-counting exercise body.

Secondly, I would like to substantiate whatelse NC has been expected
within the DNSO participants.

1. After asking ICANN staff to describe all the details which definitely 
    need lots of legal and technical expertise, NC should review
    wether or not such missions have been properly done by the staff.

2. The informal meetings between NC and Board are expected in the
    ICANN meeting to update each other. There have been some cases
    which made some members of NC perplexed by abrupt ICANN Board
    decisions such as ICANN and NSI contract and New gTLD decision.
    
3. To make sure that if NC can't find any consensus in any 
    Working Group's Report, NC is required to come back to
    Working Group with further works rather than concluding that
    there was no consensus in the report.

For the last, there have been requests from some group of people that
to form additional constituencies are needed in the DNSO structure such 
as "Individual constituency" and so forth.

It might be good chance for NC to analyze what could be the benefits/
losses in introducing the new constituencies.

Regards,

YJ

> As requested on today's call, the archive for the review work.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/maillist.html