[registrars] DNSO Review ... reminder....
Here's a reminder regarding the DNSO review. A number of constituencies
have already received replies from their members and I want to ensure we
as Registrars have significant input in the process.
There are a few questions below and your responses would be appreciated.
Thanks and best regards,
To date, the DNSO has been tasked with the following responsibilities:
A. Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group A, Names
Councilís review of Working Group A report, followed by the Names
recommendation based on the Working Group Aís report to the Board and
final adoption by the ICANN Board.
B. new generic Top Level Domains (new gTLDs): Working Group B and C,
Council review of Working Group B and Cís reports, followed by its
recommendations to the Board.
C. DNSO ICANN Board Elections: Two elections held: 1) October 1999,
three ICANN Board members for 3, 2, 1 years respectively; 2) September
filling the three year seat for the 1 year expired seat.
∑ To what extent has the DNSO fulfilled the responsibilities in A,
B and C?
∑ Have the policies recommended by the DNSO represented an
consensus of the affected stakeholders? Have the viewpoints of
stakeholders been considered?
∑ Have the recommendations been well defined, useful in terms of
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,
received the support of those being asked to implement them?
∑ Has the DNSO failed to address problems that have been called to
attention through the Names Council?
∑ Does the DNSO performance require improvement, and if so, how?
∑ Are the responsibilities of the components (NC, Constituencies,
the relationship among them well defined?
∑ How can the DNSO minimize the amount of subjectivity and
amount of objective consensus building, with its current
structure? With a
∑ Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has
not, how can the degree of expertise be enhanced?
The structure of the DNSO is as follows: The NC, Seven constituencies,
the General Assembly.
A. Names Council:
Under the ICANN bylaws, the Names Council is responsible for the
of the consensus-building process of the DNSO. The NC consists of
representatives selected by each of seven constituencies. The NC
via a list serve, regular teleconference calls, and physical meetings
conjunction with ICANN quarterly meetings. There have been concerns
DNSO Names Council has evolved into a generalist body. Questions below
to address the role of the NC, and how to improve it.
∑ Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to steer and
DNSO consensus process, or can this be improved?
∑ What are the proper expectations for the Names Council, and what
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
defined charters and more frequently reviewing the state of their work?
∑ How can the NC enhance the level of technical or other expertise
in the consensus-development process?
∑ How much or little should the NC be involved in the detailed
∑ Does the NC manage the policy-development process so that
are reached in a timely manner?
∑ Does the existing structure work to generate consensus
domain name matters?
∑ Does the Names Council give appropriate level of consideration
views of all affected stakeholders?
∑ The NC recommendations have been criticized as often being
merely reflecting the outcome of the respective working groups. How can
NC interpret the outcome of the working groups, and formulate a better
defined and stronger recommendations consistent with the consensus
∑ Do the NC representatives adequately communicate with their
constituencies? Do the constituencies communicate with their NC
∑ Does the NC adequately communicate with the ICANN staff and
∑ Does the NC adequately communicate with other SO Councils?
∑ After consulting ICANN staff to address details which require
technical expertise, does the NC review whether or not such
∑ How can the NC improve the role of the DNSO under ICANN, and
ability to provide advice and input to the ICANN Board on domain
∑ Are the constituencies a correct division? Are all DNSO
adequately represented in the existing constituency groups? Do the
divisions aggregate individuals or entities with closely aligned
and permit the development of focused positions?
∑ Should the constituencies be reformulated by combining user
constituencies? By combining provider constituencies? In some other
∑ 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,
constituency members? Is this up to the constituency to address, or
it be brought to the attention of the NC?
∑ Are the constituencies fulfilling their role as open and
channels of dialogue and discussion toward the development of community
consensus? Do they allow effective development of collective positions
those with similar interests? Does this process promote the
overall community consensus?
∑ Does the current constituency division minimize the
effectiveness of the
DNSO and NC?
∑ Are the constituencies adequately representing the intended
are there important parts of the Internet Community that may need
∑ Should there be a constituency for individuals, and if so, how
membership be constituted?
∑ How do you ensure that individuals who choose to form an
constituency represent the vast interests
of individuals ?
∑ No constituencies have been added since the original seven
were recognized (provisionally) in May 1999. What should be the
process for assessing whether the constituencies serving the goal of
providing appropriate forums for affected stakeholder groups?
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
∑ How can the level of participation by GA members in the GA be
∑ If changes are made in the constituency structures, and possibly
individual constituency added, should the GA continue to exist?
D. Working Groups:
∑ Are the working groups an appropriate mechanisms to foster
∑ If the NC canít find consensus in a working group report, what
the next step?
∑ Are there mechanisms other than working groups that the NC
in managing the consensus-development process? For example,
∑ 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
Board shall accept recommendations of the DNSO if the Board finds that
recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best
of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent with the Articles and Bylaws;
arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by
representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and
isn't reasonably opposed by any other Supporting Organization.