DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[nc-review] DNSO review version 3.0 comment - recommendation

This message may be redelivered later through my other account
which couldn't be delivered for more than 12 hours so far.

Hello Review TF members,

The version 3.0 has 9 different suggestions for further recommendation.
In accomplishing this process, I want to add another suggestion to this.

To have full range of true DNSO review, the recommendation should
be filled up by the voluntary experts who have been involved with the
DNSO for more than a year i.e. either participation in a constituency
or GA or WG. The number of volunteers should be limited to 10 for
its efficient communication or practical works. If the number is over 10,
the decision on who should be on the voluntary committee will be made
under the guidance by Names Coucil.

The first priority is recommended to go to those who have been
contributing to Review-WG since Dec. 23 2000.
Thank you,

[In addition to issues identified in this report for specific improvements,
a study should occur on the overall DNSO discussion process, including how
to encourage participation, Constituency reporting, consensus building at
all levels of the DNSO, and communication between the DNSO, ICANN Board,
Staff. Additionally, the study should determine functional methods for
including substantive expertise for issues the DNSO addresses]

[Suggestion:. Study of constituency structures, and charters, and extent to
which constituencies overlap, with emphasis on identifying any overlap, and
concrete steps to improve representation, participation]

[Suggestion: recommendation to establish a study to identify specific core
issues that need to be addressed in order to determine if and how to
establish an individual domain name holder’s constituency. Included in the
recommendations provisions to ensure an adequate level of participation and
representative of the individual domain name holders. Clearly define the
membership, which must have broad and international representation.
Different models should be looked at to see how best to ensure this, such as
provisional recognition for membership.]

[Suggestion: Undertake study to reevaluate role of the General Assembly
within the DNSO, including assessing its role if an Individual Domain Name
Holders Constituency is further explored. Study should look at different
models and roles the GA could have, how to increase participation and
authority, with clearly defined membership, with broad and international

[Suggestion: Establish short-term study to identify and implement
improvements for the consensus/discussion in the DNSO currently existing
under Working Groups. Study should explore such options as whether working
groups members should submit papers to focus discussion, there should be
smaller working groups, such as task forces, as an alternative to the
current working group structure, and how to enhance the level of technical
or other expertise employed in the consensus-development process. Study
should include outcome of Working Group D]

[Suggestion: Request NC to identify steps and mechanisms for the NC members
to effectively use their time, encourage greater participation, develop
clear mandates and procedures, so that representatives focus is on
substantive issues, and matters of DNSO work.  Included should be steps to
improve communication with ICANN Board members and better understanding of
how the DNSO can better fulfill it’s responsibilities within the ICANN

[Suggestion – Establish secure mechanisms for the DNSO secretariat/staff.]

[Suggestion: Establish recommendations, including cost assessment and cost
coverage, to provide for translations to increase international
accessibility. Results of assessment should be posted for public comment,
including what languages would be translated, and cost of translations for
professional or alternative translation services.]

[Suggestion: identify specific action items, including time line, to
facilitate increased levels of participation.]
                        [End of Recommendation]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>