ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[registrars]


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

[registrars] DNSO review .... Comments please


Fellow Registrars

We have an opportunity to review the DNSO (organization and process) and
I invite your comments on the document below.

I appreciate you are all busy on other activities but it is VERY
important we have input on this review for the future direction of
ICANN.

Time is short ... and I would appreciate feed back by 28th
September..... sorry I know this is not good timing... I asked for an
extension but it was rejected...

Thanks, public comments preferred but private comments welcomed...

Paul.


DRAFT 1.2 -- DNSO Review -- WORK IN PROGRESS

Outline for the DNSO Review

STATUS OF DRAFT: This Draft document is a work in progress and is
intended
for further discussion at the NC teleconference September 21, 2000. As
background, the outline was circulated to the NC-Review Committee on
August
11th. Comments received have been incorporated into draft 1.1. Also
included
are comments received on the GA list, which have been compiled by
Roberto
Gateano who, as Chair of the GA, is the liaison to the NC-Review.

Outreach to be carried out: Draft 1.2 must be forwarded by each
NC-Review
Representative to the respective constituency for comment and input.
Comments are to be compiled by the respective NC-Review Representatives,
and
forwarded to the NC-Review committee. The GA Chair will be responsible
for
overseeing the continued GA input to this working progress.

The Berkman Center for Internet and Society has offered to help with the

DNSO process. Does the NC-review committee wish to use this offer at the

present stage, or would it be more appropriate after the review, when
any
changes are undertaken?

I. Introduction:

The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, with the responsibility
of
advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the
domain name system. The DNSO has the primary responsibility for
developing
and recommending substantive policies regarding to the domain name
system.
Additionally, the Board can refer proposals for substantive policies
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration
and
recommendation to the Board. Subject to the provision of Article III,
Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the Board shall accept the
recommendations
of the DNSO if it finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the
purposes of, and is in the best interest of, ICANN; (2) is consistent
with
ICANN’s articles of incorporation and bylaws; (3) was arrived at through

fair and open processes (including participation by representatives of
other
Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably
opposed by
the ASO or PSO.

II. Background:

The DNSO was formally established in March 1999 as one of ICANN’s three
SOs.
It was formed following extensive global discussions and communications,

with the intent of trying to establish an SO that represented the
stakeholders in ICANN necessary for developing and recommending
substantive
polices regarding the domain name system. Since its establishment, it
has
made three recommendations for policies to the ICANN Board involving
dispute
resolution, new top-level domains, and famous trademarks and the
operation
of the domain-name system.  During this period it has also chosen four
directors to the ICANN Board through two sets of elections. .With this
experience with the DNSO’s actual performance, it is now appropriate to
review the DNSO to determine whether it is fulfilling its commitments,
and
whether it needs to be adjusted in order to better fulfill them.

III. Review:

The objectives of the DNSO Review Committee are:

·       To review the DNSO’s responsibilities and its work.
·       To recommend making DNSO function as designed.
·       To review and discuss this with the respective constituencies,
and general
assembly of the DNSO.

Outlined below are sections addressing the structure of the DNSO, and
specific questions on the responsibilities of the organization, and the
structure. This draft attempts to consolidate comments received on draft

1.0, which was circulated to the NC-Review.

The review will conclude with recommendations, if any, on how to better
improve the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the organization, and

whether any improvements require structural changes. The Initial
Self-Assessment of the DNSO Review is due October 13th.

VI. DNSO Responsibilities:

The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN Board with respect to
policy
issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSO’s primary
responsibility
is to develop and recommend substantive policies regarding to the domain

name system. Additionally, the Board can refer substantive policies
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration
and
recommendation to the Board.

To date, the DNSO has been tasked with the following responsibilities:

A. Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group A, Names
Council’s review of Working Group A report, followed by the Names
Council
recommendation based on the Working Group A’s report to the Board and
the
final adoption by the ICANN Board.

B. new generic Top Level Domains (new gTLDs): Working Group B and C,
Names
Council review of Working Group B and C’s reports, followed by its
recommendations to the Board.

C. DNSO ICANN Board Elections: Two elections held: 1) October 1999,
choosing
three ICANN Board members for 3, 2, 1 years respectively; 2) September
2000,
filling the three year seat for the 1 year expired seat.

·       To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled these responsibilities?

·       Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an
adequate
consensus of the affected stakeholders?  Have the       viewpoints of
all
stakeholders been considered?

·       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?

·       To the extent the recommendations have been adopted as policies,
have they
received the support of those being asked to    implement them?

·       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?

·       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?

·       Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has
addressed?  If
not, how can the degree of expertise be         enhanced?


V. Structure:

The structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven constituencies,
and
the General Assembly.

A. Names Council:

Under the ICANN bylaws, the Names Council is responsible for the
management
of the consensus-building process of the DNSO. The NC consists of
representatives selected by each of seven constituencies.  The NC
functions
via a list serve, regular teleconference calls, and physical meetings in

conjunction with ICANN quarterly meetings. There have been concerns that
the
DNSO Names Council has evolved into a generalist body. Questions below
aim
to address the role of the NC, and how to improve it.

·       Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to steer and
manage the
DNSO consensus process, or can this be  improved?

·       What are the proper expectations for the Names Council, and what
is its
proper role in relation to the DNSO and the     ICANN Board?

·       Should the NC take a more active role in managing the
consensus-development process, for example by giving working    groups
more
defined charters and more frequently reviewing the state of their work?

·       How can the NC enhance the level of technical or other expertise
employed
in the consensus-development process?

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

·       Does the NC manage the policy-development process so that
recommendations
are reached in a timely manner?

·       Does the existing structure work to generate consensus
recommendations on
domain name matters?

·       Does the Names Council give appropriate level of consideration
to the
views of all affected stakeholders?

·       The NC recommendations have been criticized as often being
‘weak’, or
merely reflecting the outcome of the respective working groups. How can
the
NC interpret the outcome of the working groups, and formulate a better
defined and stronger recommendations consistent with the consensus
process?

·       Do the NC representatives adequately communicate with their
respective
constituencies? Do the constituencies   communicate with their NC
representatives?

·       Does the NC adequately communicate with the ICANN staff and
Board?

·       Does the NC adequately communicate with other SO Councils?

·       After consulting ICANN staff to address details which require
legal and
technical expertise, does the NC review whether         or not such
input is
sufficient?

·       How can the NC improve the role of the DNSO under ICANN, and
improve its
ability to provide advice and input to the      ICANN Board on domain
name
policy issues?


COMMENTS RECEIVED on Structure:  From the GA Discussion list:

·       Some people have expressed concerns at the Constituency
structure
altogether.
·       Others, while they consider that there are at the moment no
practical
alternatives to the Constituency structure, propose some modifications.
Proposal include: the reformulation of the Constituencies, aggregating
the
present groups in fewer categories; to improve the representation (some
groups are under-represented, some over-represented, some
misrepresented);
to define better the balance of power between groups (i.e. not to allow
one
"alliance" among some Constituencies to rule); to allow dynamic
configuration of constituencies as, for instance, some provisions in the

Paris Draft.


B. Constituencies:

·       Are the constituencies a correct division? Are all DNSO
interests
adequately represented in the existing constituency groups? Do the
current
divisions aggregate individuals or entities with closely aligned
interests
and permit the development of focused positions?

·       Should the constituencies be reformulated by combining user
constituencies?  By combining provider constituencies?  In some other
way?

·       Is it up to each constituency to define its relationship with NC

representatives or should the DNSO/ICANN have some minimal mandatory
requirements for all?

·       What happens if an elected NC rep does not attend NC meetings,
ignores
constituency members? Is this up to the constituency to address, or
should
it be brought to the attention of the NC?

·       Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and
transparent
channels of dialogue and discussion toward the development of community
consensus? Do they allow effective development of collective positions
of
those with similar interests?  Does this process promote the development
of
overall community consensus?

·       Does the current constituency division minimize the
effectiveness of the
DNSO and NC?

·       Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended
members?  Or
are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need better

representation?

·       Should there be a constituency for individuals, and if so, how
should its
membership be constituted?

·       No constituencies have been added since the original seven
constituencies
were recognized (provisionally) in May 1999.  What should be the ongoing

process for assessing whether the constituencies serving the goal of
providing appropriate forums for affected stakeholder groups?

COMMENTS RECEIVED: From the GA discussion on Individuals

·       A special case is a Constituency for Individuals.
·       There is rough consensus that such a constituency should be
added, but
there is divergence of opinions on whether:
·       the Constituency should be limited to Individual Domain Name
Holders or
have a wider charter; is IDNO the core of the   Individual Constituency,
or
should other groups join in;

·       The issue of ICANN having not responded to the IDNO proposal for

Constituency has been raised.


C. General Assembly (GA):

·       What should the future role of the GA be?

·       Is the function of the GA properly defined?

·       How can the level of participation by constituency members in
the GA be
improved?

·       How can the level of participation by GA members in the GA be
improved?

·       If changes are made in the constituency structures, and possibly
an
individual constituency added, should the GA    continue to exist?

D. Working Groups:

·       Are the working groups an appropriate mechanisms to foster
consensus in
the DNSO?

·       If the NC can’t find consensus in a working group report, what
should be
the next step?

·       Are there mechanisms other than working groups that the NC
should employ
in managing the consensus-development process?  For example, assigned
task
forces?


COMMENTS RECEIVED: from the GA discussion

·       There seem to be consensus for a WG to start, addressing at
least the
point of creating a Constituency for individuals.
·       Other points raised are more controversial, and should be
addressed by the
Working Group.


E. Secretariat:

·       What is the relationship between the ICANN Secretariat, the DNSO

secretariat, and the Constituency secretariats?


VI. Other Review Questions:

·       Have the DNSO recommendations furthered the ICANN work
consistent with the
provision in Article VI, Section 2(e), of the ICANN Bylaws, that the
ICANN
Board shall accept recommendations of the DNSO if the Board finds that
the
recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best
interest
of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and Bylaws; (3)
was
arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by
representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4)

isn't reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization.


OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED to include in the review: From the GA discussion

list

·       It has been noticed that DNSO is in a peculiar situation,
because the
other Supporting Organization had already       existing working
structures
(IETF, RIRs).
·       The relationship between DNSO and At Large has to be defined
(but this
concerns probably only - or primarily - the GA).
·       The consensus building mechanism seems to need improvement.
Suggestions
include: let the GA discuss of the results of   the WGs before
forwarding
them to the NC; improve the debate in the GA (common discussion point
among
Constituencies).



>








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