[wg-review] WG-Continuatioin

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

to all.
It seems that the NC cut off the link - the automated filling of my 
returned mails prevented me from an error - but reesatblished it. I am 
interesetd in a WG roster, to know who would like to pursue the WG-Review 
on a permanent basis and as per the following agenda.



Environment

The SOs are support organizations advising the BoD both externally through 
documents and internally through the election of Directors. The DNSO is 
concerned by the iCANN management of the legacy Name Space through the 
DNS.  For political reasons Joe Sims has been lead to include withiong the 
DNSO the @large concerns (he testified it) upon the proposition of Dennis 
Jennings.

This was an error as it created a mixed interest body which did not respond 
to the expectations of both concerned parties and was therefore unable to 
produce. This error is under a partial correction effort through the @large 
Study Group mission. It should remove the @large from the DNSO and build 
their hown home.

During that period changes will have to occur to adap the DNSO to its 
revived full mission. To monitor the work of the @large study, to dialog 
with the Study Group, to propose and may be install new DNSO solutions is 
now role of the WG-Review. This mission should continue as long as the 
@large Study Group continue; it power being the same as the @large Study 
Group: a clean sheet approach and a bylaw modification proposition capacity



Definition of the DNSO duties on a day to day basis

The DNSO duties are quite known after the working period we went through. I 
will recall them as compared to the @large.

The DNSO is a place for competences
concerned by netwide interests
and trying to reach consensus

@large is a place for stakeholders
concerned by their various private interests
and subject to voting rules

The structure of the DNSO is currently based upon speciliazed SIGs electing 
3 people each at the NC and as such named "constiuencies" a word hermetic 
to 94% of the cultures of the world and a GA with no structural power and 
an increasing weight.

- the SIG system should be developped through the unformal creation at 
Members' decision of GA/SIGs (a link to a site and an ML)
- a new place should be found for the WWA of ccTLDs, most probably to be 
percieved in thir NIC capacity (additional services)
- a light coordination structure (ML) of the SIGs could help concerting 
appropriate changes including a progressive election of the GA Chair and 
the BoD Directors by the GA
- the GA/SIG motions should be reviewable by the GA.
- the BoD should use the NC as an advisor on the GA motions
- for the time being the "constituency" aspect may should be retained to 
keep staffing the NC as an with wise people list (a Senate, the GA being a 
Congress) , under the condition that a constituency is added for the 
Individual Domain Holders.

The daily task of the continued WG-Review is to advise the BoD, the NC and 
the GA on such issues.



New capacities of the DNSO

The role of the WG-Review in proposing improvements to the DNSO is also to 
help improving its mission statement.  New topics should be covered by the 
DNSO. It is the role of the WG-Review to study them and propose 
additional/new approaches:

-  Name Space
-  value added DNS service
-  TLD modlelisations (with a big plural)
-  equal access to DNS services to all TLDs including through DNSSEC
-  protection of the freedom of the content
-  viruscoms watch
-  convergence with other media
-  bottom-up rather than bottom-line approach
-  legal nature of the iCANN
-  international naming string issues
-  NICs relations
-  new services
-  SSRAC contrl (DNS management) and CRADA information (cooperation wi the 
USG for DNS develomment)
-  market demand for news forms of resolution than the DNS
-  relations with external roots like China, non-legacy TLDs, pirates like 
New.net ...
-  relations withe the US "legal market" and with oithers such markets....
    etc...


I am interested in knowing who would continue working on this agenda and 
keeping this WG-Review a real "we the iCANN" builder - and help the Chair 
and other to know if it is worth fighting to continue it either as a WG or 
as a GA/SIG.

I thank you for your time.
Jefsey

--
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