DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [nc-intake]

I agree with Philip regarding the size of the committee.  Having one
representative from each constituency would probably make the committee too
large and less able to function effectively.  Moreover, I believe that
concerns about representation can be alleviated if the IC has certain
principles upon which it performs its function.  I think that the ICANN
Bylaws may provide a start for such principles as copied below.


According to the ICANN Bylaws, Article VI-B:
	The purpose of the DNSO is to "advise the Board with respect to
policy issues relating to the Domain Name System."  [Section 1 (a)]
	To fulfill this purpose, the Names Council (NC) is given the
responsibility for managing the consensus-building process of the DNSO
[Section 2 (a)].

The Bylaws provide some specific direction with regard to how the NC should
manage the consensus-building process.  Section 2 (b) reads: 
.     "It shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry
out that responsibility, including the designation of such research or
drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it
determines are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO."
	It is "responsible for ensuring that all responsible views have been
heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC." 

Section 2 (c) and (d) provide some detail with regard to the process that
should be followed:
1.	"Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
domain name policies or recommendations."
2.	"If the NC undertakes consideration of a domain name topic, or if a
Constituency so requests, the NC shall designate one or more research or
drafting committees, or working groups of the GA, as appropriate to evaluate
the topic, and shall set a time frame for the report of such committee or
working group."
3.	"Following the receipt of a report or recommendation from such a
body, the NC may accept the report or recommendation for submission to the
Constituencies for comment and consultation, or return the report or
recommendation to the body from which it originated for further work."
4.	"After the report or recommendation is submitted to the
Constituencies and the comment period for the Constituencies has expired,
the NC shall evaluate the comments to determine whether there is a basis for
a consensus recommendation to the Board."
5.	"If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the
DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus position
shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation, along with
all materials or other information that could reasonably be relevant to the
Board's review of that determination, including (but not limited to) the
dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
6.	"If more than one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the
members of the NC determine that the DNSO process has produced a community
consensus, that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC
recommendation, along with statements of majority and minority views, and
any separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC."
7.	"Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an affirmative
vote of one-half (1/2) of the members of the NC may be returned to the body
from which it originated, or may be assigned to a new body, for further
work. In such a case, the NC may report to the board the lack of a consensus
and the steps, if any, it plans to take from this point forward with respect
to this particular recommendation."
8.	"The NC is responsible for ensuring that the Board is informed of
any significant implementation or operational concerns expressed by any
responsible party."

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 3:37 AM
To: nc-intake@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [nc-intake] 

Caroline raises some interesting points.
The first is the scope of the intake committee and thus its composition.

Should it be a small group, prioritising an agenda from various inputs?
Or an agenda determining / selecting group and thus need to be have a
representative from each constituency?

My only fear about the second option is that we waste time having pre
meetings of agenda topics and bigger meetings are more difficult to
arrange - unless we only operate by e-mail.

Conversely, if we can truly create an agenda that is the essence of the
debate and so avoids the need for points of information / repetition etc
that we get on NC teleconferences, then the intake committee will add real
value to the process.

What are the views of the rest of the present intake committee? (If we want
to have one rep from each constituency we will need to solicit some more

On the substantive proposals put up by Caroline I agree with most of these.
I am happy also to drop the cards idea as it is probably better suited to a
much larger group.


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