DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[comments-review] Comment on Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process

Comment on Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process

Due to substantial controversy over the charter and duties of WG-Review, 
I've prepared the following timeline and comments about the process of 
creating the working group. If there are any substantive omissions in this 
comment, available from the public record, I apologize and would like them 
included by reference. I believe this summary is accurate for the time 
beginning with the NC meeting in Yokohama, through the Board's public 
comment period at Marina Del Rey. It is unclear to me whether or not the 
Board of Directors was ever formally notified that the Names Council had 
NOT created a working group in that four month period

Part Two of this comment will address the period since November.

Greg Burton
co-chair, WG-Review

Timeline and Creation of WG-Review.

July 14, 2000 - Yokohama Names Council Meeting Scribe Notes

VI.   Committee to Review the DNSO and its Functions
     E.   Cochetti: Create a new Working Group G with mandate to examine 
the performance and operations of the DNSO since its inceptions and 
to  make recommendations by September 15 for improvement of the DNSO’s 
operations. That the Council form a Task Force of one representative 
from  each constituency that receives the results of the Working Group, 
take comments from constituencies, and undertake an evaluation of the 
DNSO’s  performance since its inception, reporting back to the Names 
Council no later than October 1 (so the NC can make ICANN’s October 13 
     F.   Carey: Reverse the order? Start with a task force, then a working 
group afterwards?
         1.   Cochetti: Task Force should begin its work immediately. Task 
Force needs input from interested parties, hence the Working Group. 
Need  WG’s comments before TF finalizes its recommendations, so WG should 
come first.
     G.   Stubbs: Finalize detail son teleconference in latter part of 
second week of August.
     H.   Swinehart: Modification to proposed resolution. Should provide WG 
with a methodology.
  I.   Park: Need to accelerate the timetable. Should have a formal 
procedure and methodology, but also should be flexible.
     J.   Schneider: Amend the motion. Charter of Task Force and Working 
Group should address the question of whether an Individual Domain Names 
Owners’ Constituency should be added.
     K.   Vote: Passed.
Comment: The NC clearly passed a motion to create a Working Group first, 
and then a Task Force. Note particularly Mr. Cochetti's statement that the 
WG was needed for input.

The Next day, at the ICANN BoD Public Forum:
July 15, 2000 - Yokohama
G.   DNSO Report – Ken Stubbs
            1.   GA supports establishment of an additional constituency of 
individual domain name holders. Suggest establishment of working group plus 
a task force with one member of each constituency. Hope for rapid 
resolution of the issue.
            2.   Review of DNSO – need to work closely with Executive 
Committee of the Board.
            8.   Wong: Working group to address the DNSO Review process 
should be helpful. Thank you.
Comment: Vice Chairman Wong clearly indicates interest in the Working 
Group, and doesn't mention the Task Force. The NC was clearly committing to 
the board that a WG would be created.

Now let's jump ahead two months into the middle of September. First, a post 
to the nc-review task force list
Post from Theresa Swinehart - September 11, 2000
.... having in mind the many comments that were exchanged on the working 
group (which I understand the ga discussions
Comment: Clearly the NC did not create a working group with methodology. If 
you will notice, the modification to the original resolution to include 
"with a methodology" was made by Ms Swinehart.

Oddly enough, the minutes of the NC teleconference from September have this 
"Roberto Gaetano questioned whether a Task Force rather than a Working 
Group should prepare the Review report. He indicated that such a choice is 
not responsive to the GA's motion in Yokohama calling for creation of a 
Working Group and subsequent decision to merge the issue of Constituency 
for Individuals into DNSO review Working Group. The NC            discussed 
this and decided to continue following the procedure the NC decided on in 
Comment: the resolution called for a Task Force AND a Working Group. I see 
no record of the NC deciding to change that procedure. Mr Gaetano's comment 
was, as far as can be determined at this remove, accurate. One wonders 
where the decision to not create a working group is referenced. Even more 
curious, the record from Yokohama shows the board interest in a WG report - 
what Mr Gaetano's question calls for is a return to the resolution passed 
and reported to the board. Calling the modified process that the Task Force 
was engaged in "the procedure the NC decided on in Yokohama" seems wildly 

Several weeks later, on the General Assembly list we see:
Post from Roberto Gaetano - October 3, 2000
"For the record, the NC has excluded, for the time being, to create a 
formal WG on the subject."
Comment: At this point, almost three months after passing a resolution and 
reporting it two the board, the NC apparently had no intention of 
implementing fully the resolution.

Two weeks later, back on the nc-review list:
Post from Roberto Gaetano - October 17, 2000
"No big reaction from the GA this time.
The only constant comment (on the list and in private) is the need for a WG 
for the DNSO Review."
"BTW, I don't understand the reluctancy about a WG. Not to have created it 
may have been a big mistake, because it creates further opposition."
Comment: Mr. Gaetano's post did not receive a public, threaded response 
from ANY member of the NC.

Let's jump another month, to the meetings in Marina Del Rey
Names Council Meeting - November 14, 2000 Scribe Notes
V.   DNSO Review: Swinehart
        A.   Request from ICANN Board to make recommendations on DNSO’s 
structure, function, design. Task force created – one representative from 
each constituency, plus GA Chair. Representatives sought advice from their 
constituencies. Intellectual Property constituency responded, others not. 
But most people occupied with other priorities.
        B.   Will notify ICANN that work is ongoing. Seek further responses 
to assure representativeness.
            2.   Park: Need a WG to discuss DNSO review.
                • Swinehart: Perhaps the GA could act as the WG? They’ve 
discussed this before, and everyone is a participant there.
                • Cochetti: Sounds good to me. Little difference between 
creating a WG and relying on the GA.
Comment: Apparently the Names Council has forgotten the resolution passed 
and reported to the Board in Yokohama. If this is actually the case, record 
keeping for NC decisions is sorely remiss. Mr. Cochetti and Ms Swinehart 
seem unaware that attempts to make the GA function as a working group had 
already failed, although Mr Gaetano had reported that a month earlier.

        J.   Swinehart: Need to extend Review Committee’s work to the first 
week of the New Year given the challenges of winter holidays.
        K.   Stubbs: Concerned that certain constituencies haven’t 
participated at all.
            1.   Swinehart: It’s been like pulling teeth to try to move 
this process forward. Disappointed by the number of people participating in 
this process.
Comment: Four months into the process, Mr Cochetti's comment in Yokohama 
that the task force needs a working group for input seems prophetic.

The next day, Mr Stubbs reports to the ICANN Board :
Public Forum - November 15, 2000
     VI.   Domain Name Supporting Organization – Ken Stubbs, Chair of Names 
        D.   Conducting comprehensive review of the DNSO. Not moving as 
quickly as was hoped. Contributions from some constituencies. But other 
activities in the last 60 days have made it hard to focus on this. 
Anticipate output within the next 3-5 weeks.
Comment: No apparent statement that the NC had decided to change the 
process reported to the Board in Yokohama.



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