[registrars] DNSO Review ... reminder....

["Paul M. Kane" <Paul.Kane@REACTO.com>]

Good morning,

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,

Paul


*******************************************************************

 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 the responsibilities in A,
B and C?

 ·      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?


 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?

 ·      How do you ensure that individuals who choose to form an
individual
 constituency represent the vast interests
 of individuals ?

 ·      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?


 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?


 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.