[nc-review] Resending per MdR discussion, FW: [council] NC Review 2.0 Circulationfor Comment.
In follow-up to agreement at the Marina del Ray Names Council Meeting,
please find below the resending of the NC review questionnaire for comment.
As you recall, due to the very limited responses received before the
November meeting (including from only two constituencies), this is being
recirculated to ensure input from all constituencies, general assembly, and
the DNSO Review Working Group.
AGAIN, please each NC Review representative, coordinate with the other
constituency representatives, to ensure that the document has been
circulated and input has been received from your constituencies. Those that
have already provided input are welcome to add more comments, or just
provide a note that comments remain as they are. Roberto, please as Chair of
the GA forward to the GA for input and discussion.
The timeline is as follows. The NC Review Task Force must receive comments
by January 10, 2001. PLEASE NOTE, while this extension of the DNSO review is
necessary due to limited responses received, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL
EXTENSION. The NC Task Force will then have 1 week to prepare the report
based on response to forward to the ICANN Board. The report will be
forwarded to the NC on the 17th, for discussion and approval at the NC call
on January 24th. Subsequent to NC approval it will be sent to the ICANN
board, where it will be posted for public comment.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:25 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; 'names council'
Cc: Louis Touton (E-mail); Ken Stubbs (E-mail)
Subject: [council] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.
All NC Review and NC members,
Please find below the DNSO review 2.0 to be forwarded to all constituencies.
Constituency representatives are responsible for forwarding this to their
constituencies, and ensuring that any constituency comments are forwarded to
the NC Review committee. Instructions on comments is in the document below
under 'Instructions for responding'.
Responses by October 9th would be most useful, and will be included in what
is forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses will also
be incorporated in the report with conclusions and recommendations from the
NC to the Board one week prior to the Los Angeles meeting.
Comments from the GA are included in this outreach, and all can participate
in that forum as well (i.e., this is a working group of the whole). Roberto
is the point of contact, and together with Harald, should provide to the
review committee comments from the GA.
Specific for Constituency and GA representatives: In addition to collecting
comments on the document below, we also need to include information on the
growth and development of the DNSO. This information will be collected
specifically in coordination with the respective constituencies, GA, and
secretariat. Please provide as constituency representatives the responses
for your respective constituencies, and/or where relevant.
How have the membership of constituencies grown over the past year?
How has the GA grown?
How has contribution to ICANN and NC secretariat increased in past year?
How many new countries added to membership in past year?
How many countries are not represented in DNSO?
DNSO Review 2.0 --
Outline for the DNSO Review
Status of Draft: This document is the result of several drafts (1.1-1.3)
discussed in the NC review, and NC, to formulate a document with questions
that would provide a basis for constituencies to comment and review the
DNSO. Document 2.0 was prepared following the NC teleconference September
21, 2000 and comments received following circulation after the call.
Instructions for responding:
Document 2.0 (which is Draft 1.3 with last NC comments) must be forwarded by
each NC-Review Representative to the respective constituency for comment and
input. Comments are to be compiled by the respective NC-Review
Representatives, and forwarded to the NC-Review committee. The GA Chair will
be responsible for overseeing the continued GA input to this working
In responses please provide concrete examples and the basis for conclusions,
rather than just conclusory statements. Please also make clear from whom
(not the person's name, but what interest(s) they represent) the comments
are coming from. Please also offer specific suggestions; either that
specific DNSO things are working well or that they are not; and if they are
not how we think they can be improved.
Time for Comments: Comments and responses to questions in document 2.0
received by October 9th would be useful and can be included in what is
forwarded to the ICANN Board by October 13th. Later responses will also, of
course, be incorporated in the report containing conclusions and
recommendations from the NC prior to the Los Angeles meeting.
The DNSO is a Supporting Organization of ICANN, with the responsibility of
advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the
domain name system. The DNSO has the primary responsibility for developing
and recommending substantive policies regarding to the domain name system.
Additionally, the Board can refer proposals for substantive policies
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and
recommendation to the Board. Subject to the provision of Article III,
Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the Board shall accept the recommendations
of the DNSO if it finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the
purposes of, and is in the best interest of, ICANN; (2) is consistent with
ICANNís articles of incorporation and bylaws; (3) was arrived at through
fair and open processes (including participation by representatives of other
Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by
the ASO or PSO.
The DNSO was formally established in March 1999 as one of ICANNís three SOs.
It was formed following extensive global discussions and communications,
with the intent of trying to establish an SO that represented the
stakeholders in ICANN necessary for developing and recommending substantive
polices regarding the domain name system. Since its establishment, it has
made three recommendations for policies to the ICANN Board involving dispute
resolution, new top-level domains, and famous trademarks and the operation
of the domain-name system. During this period it has also chosen four
directors to the ICANN Board through two sets of elections. With this
experience with the DNSOís actual performance, it is now appropriate to
review the DNSO to determine whether it is fulfilling its commitments, and
whether it needs to be adjusted in order to better fulfill them.
The objectives of the DNSO Review Committee are:
∑ To review the DNSOís responsibilities and its work.
∑ To recommend making DNSO function as designed.
∑ To review and discuss this with the respective constituencies, and general
assembly of the DNSO.
Outlined below are sections addressing the structure of the DNSO, and
specific questions on the responsibilities of the organization, and the
structure. This draft attempts to consolidate comments received on draft
1.0, which was circulated to the NC-Review.
The review will conclude with recommendations, if any, on how to better
improve the fulfillment of the responsibilities of the organization, and
whether any improvements require structural changes. The Initial
Self-Assessment of the DNSO Review is due October 13th.
III. DNSO Responsibilities:
The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy
issues relating to the domain name system. The DNSOís primary responsibility
is to develop and recommend substantive policies regarding to the domain
name system. Additionally, the Board can refer substantive policies
regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and
recommendation to the Board.
To date, the DNSO has been tasked with the following responsibilities:
A. Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group A, Names
Councilís review of Working Group A report, followed by the Names Council
recommendation based on the Working Group Aís 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 Cís 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
∑ Has the DNSO process brought expertise to the issues it has addressed? If
not, how can the degree of expertise be enhanced?
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
∑ 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 Ďweakí, 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
∑ 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
∑ 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
∑ 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
∑ 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
∑ 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
∑ If the NC canít 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
∑ 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.