[wg-review] [Names Council] Report requested by NC

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Mr. Chair,

here are my comments on the Report requested by
the NC:

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

As the very nature and specifics of the Names
Council's responsibilities are not clearly
outlined, defined, nor elucidated, this situation
most definitely requires immediate improvement. 
Further, as there is no NC-sanctioned, clear
definition, of what exactly constitutes the
process in "consensus", it is pointless to attempt
the sort of evaluation this question requires. 
Perhaps, it it is still too early to ask such a
question.

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

It is proper to expect that the NC, if anywhere,
would be the place to look for a clear-cut
definition of what exactly *it* IS that the Domain
Name Support Organizations *support*.  For, in
fact, whatever *it* is, the domain name, is the
very raison d'etre, of their very existence.  From
my understanding, the NC is the representative
council of the Constituency-based General
Assembly, which is to liase with the ICANN BoD, on
matters of domain name policy (as opposed to
strict technical mangement).  As such, I think
it's reasonable to expect they had a clear
definition of their involvement.

>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?

If the more "defined charters" also included the
defintion of consensus process itself, and as long
as the NC took no active role except to help
educate, elucidate, or clarify, it would be a good
idea to have the Names Council more directly, and
regularly, exposed to the ferment of ideas at the
WG level.  

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

By explicitly and clearly defining the process of
the consensus-based decision-making mechanism
itself, and then implementing such structures and
organizations as are required for the rigours and
results of such procedure.

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

As there is no detailed account of the management
responsibilities of ICANN itself as a whole, it is
not possible to form an informed opinion on any
management details of ICANN as an organization.
Whatever level of involvement is eventually
decided upon, it should clearly establish the sort
of involvement which entails full responsibility.

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

In my estimation, the relationship between time
and the nature of the NC decisions to date, has
had more to do with haste than with circumspection
and prudence.

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

In the two and a half years I have followed, and
participated in, many of the ICANN forums and
meetings, I have seen very little evidence of any
clearly defined structure in the generation of the
equally vague "consensus" based process which is
used in making decisions.

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

As there are no standards from which to reach an
assessment for an answer to this question, I wish
to ask a question in response:

Who, in relation to the "unaffected stakeholders",
are all the "affected stakeholders", and what
exactly is the nature of their "stake" or claim,
and upon what.

>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?

By consistently defining the consensus process
itself, and putting it into active, regular, and
obvious implementation, for all to see and
emulate.

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

As I am not a member of any of the Constituencies,
I cannot possibly comment on this question.

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

It seems to me, considering the general lack of
openess in ICANN to-date, that only the ICANN
staff/Board and the NC (and possibly not even all
of them), could realistically hope to answer this
question.

>Does the NC adequately communicate with other SO Councils?

I am not in any position to assess this situation,
and cannot provide an answer, or an opinion.

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

ibid.

>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?

By establishing a clear definition of its
structure, process, and purpose, such that it can
function as a legitimately broad-based vehicle for
policy oriented input, assessment, and
recommendation to the ICANN.


Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html