[ga@dnso.org]
[council@dnso.org]
[announce@dnso.org]
[constituency secretariats]
Please find the NC Task Force - Review report.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCtaskforce-report.htmlInterim report of the Names Council task force on
Review.
Start of public comment period ending midnight local time zone 28
October
2001.
Please find attached the above mentioned report
from the Names Council task force on review. Please note the task force was
given concise terms of reference and not all issues relating to DNSO
review orICANN restructuring are intended to be included. Many issues of
organisation and structure are now under discussion in the NC structure task
force.
Your comments
are welcome on this Interim report. After the close of the comment period on 28
October, the task force will consider comments received and produce a final
report for submission to the Names Council. The target
date for this is the
November meeting in Los
Angeles.
_________________________________________________________
ICANN/DNSO
Interim
report of the Names Council review task force, September 2
-----------------------------------------------
Timeline and
process
30 September Deadline for
task force comment on
first draft.
7 October
Deadline for task force
comment on second draft
28 October
Deadline for comment on interim report sent for public comment and
to NC.
4 November Deadline for
final report produced by
task force.
13 November Final report adopted by NC at LA
meeting
Authority and
terms of reference
Names Council business plan 2001-2002 and
NC endorsed proposal of interim review task force May
2001.
6.2. Consultation. Review the recommendations of WG D and the
Review Task Force and Working Group Report and implement a means of outreach and
stakeholder consultation with built-in mechanisms for fulfilling the
objectives.
ACTION: Accept the framework proposed by WG-D as is, and turn
the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines. Give it a chance to work,
if it doesn't, then take steps to make alternative proposals. Related to this,
determine alternatives to conducting working group activities, such as using
web-based fora where proposed text is actively amended and worked on
towards consensus.
6.3. GA Chair. Review the current system of election
for the General Assembly Chair and propose changes if
required.
ACTION: Form a
small group (or include in a possible
implementation task force mandate) to
report on the current system of elections for the GA chair, and assess whether
changes are beneficial or required.
6.4.
Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential contribution
and representativeness of an individual domain name holder's
constituency.
ACTION: There is strong support for an individuals
constituency. The outstanding issue is next steps. Options to discuss on next
steps are:
1) Making the
GA the basis for the constituency, or 2)
Accepting independent
proposals by a certain date, or 3) Form a task force (7 constituencies) to set
the criteria for an individual constituency (reviewing work already done
and consolidating it into a proposal).
6.5 Language diversity. Recommend
cost effective means to provide language diversity in the context of DNSO
decisions. Form a small group (3-5) who may co-opt translation experts to make
recommendations.
ACTION:
Determine costs, and next steps to implement a cost effective means to provide
translations.
6.6. Consensus. Recommend to the NC a practical definition
of consensus for the purposes of NC consultation activities.
ACTION: Form
a task force (7 constituencies) to review consensus models used elsewhere and
outline practical definition.
1. Consultation
(business plan reference 6.2)
Recommendation on working
groups
The adoption of the guidelines
for working groups in appendix A is
recommended.
Web-based
fora as alternatives to conducting working
group activities
The task force intentionally decide to use for its
own work, and thus trial a web-based for a recommended by a member of
the task force. The results of
the trial were inconclusive
but in comparison with the exchange of e-mail via lists
there seemed little advantage. Most notably,
the following irritations were found:
* there were too
many options for posting information
* an announcements
section truncated long messages
* an auto-notification
option had to be activated and offered too many
options
* the system was overly geared to frequent
voting
* there was no neat way of segregating separate
threads, to enable several discussions to occur simultaneously.
A
separate trial of a free service enabling audio and video conferencing was also
undergone by some task force members. Getting the system to
work wasnot easy. It was subsequently found also that the system will not
work when the user is behind a NAT. This was felt to be a severe
limitation given the increasing need for network
security.
Recommendation
Further input from other web-based fora
is welcome but at this time adoption of any one
model in place of e-mail lists
is not recommended.
2. Election of the General Assembly
(GA) Chair (business plan reference 6.3)
Article VI-B.2.i of the by-laws
states:
"The NC shall elect the
Chairman of the GA annually".
The NC
for the years 2000 and 2001 has interpreted this by
adopting the following practice:
* the GA is invited to make
nominations
* nominations receiving 10 endorsements go
forward to an election by the GA
* the GA proposes to the NC
the winner and runner-up as the new GA chair and alternate chair
respectively
* the NC endorses the recommendation by a
formal vote.
In considering the practice the task force believes this
process allows full democratic participation within the GA, and
presents the NC with a simple decision when all is satisfactory with the
election process.
The additional safeguard of an NC
vote (in compliance with the by-laws) seems appropriate for two
reasons:
a) despite the
tendency for the GA mail lists to be dominated by people not
choosing to participate via constituencies and
sometimes excluded from
participation, the GA chair should nevertheless
represent all constituencies and so participation by the NC as a
body elected by current constituencies seems to be correct,
b) the
endorsement process provides a safeguard in the event of objections
to the electoral process. Discussion following the
2001 election would appear to vindicate the existence of such a
safeguard.
Recommendation
There does not appear to be a
demonstrated need to seek a change in the ICANN by-laws at
present.
3. New
Constituencies (business plan reference 6.4)
The task force chose
option three from the terms of reference but did not consider
itself the competent body to set criteria for
an individuals constituency per se. The task force decided
therefore to produce a set of
criteria which would help to
clarify questions of purpose, duplication and representation for any new
DNSO constituency.
ICANN by-laws VI-b.3.d
"Any group of
individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a
new or separate Constituency. ? The Board may create new
Constituencies in response to such a petition ? if
it
determines that such action would
serve the purposes of the Corporation. ?..Whenever
the Board posts a petition ? it will notify the
names council and will consider any response to
that notification prior to taking action."
In other words any
group may ask the Board and the Board will consult with the Names Council.
It is therefore necessary for the Names Council to have a
basis upon which to
evaluate any such petition.
Recommendation
It is
recommended that the petitioner for a new DNSO
constituency is requested by the Names Council to include in any petition
the answers to the questions specified in appendix B.
The
task force believes the petitioners of an
individuals constituency previously communicated to the Board
should be warmly encouraged to answer
these questions.
4.
Language diversity (business plan reference 6.5)
In seeking to
recommend cost effective means to provide language diversity in the
context of DNSO decisions, the task force was cognisant of
current
DNSO finances. The entire costs
of running the DNSO are born by
contributions raised by the constituencies - a process which both imposes
a
burden on some constituencies and wastes time
for all. The task force quickly agreed not to waste
time in seeking translations from commercial suppliers
because, at this time, there is
no finance available.
Given also that throughout
the existence of the DNSO there has been a call for consistent
voluntary translation that has not been answered the task
force also decided not to pursue this option further at this time. The
task
force would be delighted to hear from volunteers alerted to this need
during the public consultation phase of this report. However, the
task force also recognises that a piecemeal approach to
translation is not desirable and
that any voluntary effort has to
be sustainable, based on a coherent set of languages, and be of reliable
quality.
The task force therefore chose to explore options
for machine translation.
It was however unable
to find a recommendation by any professional
translator for any of the free internet-based translation
services. It is also likely that even where
machine translation is used, professional
translators,
familiar with ICANN jargon, would be needed to finish the job.
Some
professional translators have commented that using machine translation as
a starting point can be more time-consuming than
translating from the original, because the translator has to work out why
the machine translation
got the context or sense wrong and then
correct.
Further more, should it be the case that one or other of these
machine-based services are useful if not optimal, they are of course available
now for any
internet user to translate any page from the DNSO web site. This
possibility is at present the best option for cost-effective
translation. It would not seem appropriate without extensive trials for the DNSO
to recommend one site above others. The task force would
welcome any intervention which would advance this objective
further.
Recommendation
Given its highly limited resources and
the higher priority of substantive policy issues, the DNSO
should not spend more time on this, but note the progress
being made by ICANN staff in this regard and where appropriate to
participate in any cost-effective solution.
5. Consensus (business plan
reference 6.6)
Relevance
The task force was asked to recommend
to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the
purposes of NC consultation activities. Consensus is
relevant to DNSO decision making as it is referenced in
the by-laws and provides certain information to the
Board.
VI-B.2.b.
"The NC is responsible for the management
of the consensus building process of the DNSO."
VI-B.2.d. "If
two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determin that the
DNSO process has produced a community consensus,
that consensus position shall be forwarded to the Board as a
consensus recommendation."
"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."
In the
past the chairs of DNSO working groups have
tried to establish
guidance to the NC about the degree of consensus
within the working group on issues, in order to help with the subsequent NC
recommendation to the Board.
There has not been consistency in this
guidance.
Definitions and
usage
Lexicon definitions provide some help.
Consensus, n.
Agreement (of opinion, testimony, etc.)
Concise Oxford Dictionary
Consensus, n. a) general agreement,
unanimity.
b) the judgement arrived at by most of those
concerned. Merriam-Webster?s
Dictionary
The most useful
definition here is "judgement arrived at by most of those
concerned" but to
make this practical
needs two enablers:
* a
representative sample of DNSO stakeholders
* a vote of this
sample with a pre-determined threshold.
Where do
we find a representative sample
of DNSO stakeholders?
DNSO working
groups as currently formed are by
construction not a representative sample of
DNSO stakeholders because they are open
to
participation by anyone who chooses. It is possible but improbable that
such a group will at any moment in time be so representative. This
suggests that
discussing consensus in such groups is unlikely to
be productive and that the guidance given to the NC will be
poor.
The Names Council is constructed to represent
DNSO stakeholder interests and, notwithstanding demands
by individuals to participate, is the best structure we
currently have to be representative. This validates the by-laws faith in
the NC as being a possible home for consensus itself but does not help
the NC in its task of having to "determine that the DNSO
process has
produced a community consensus".
In essence the by-laws
charge the NC with a task but offer no help as to howthe task should be done. It
seems therefore that the most logical route (andindeed the route that experience
shows us is the one that has been followed) is to say that the NC vote
itself on a recommendation, being reflective of
the elected
representatives of DNSO stakeholders, is the only
practical means of determining community
consensus.
Recommendation
Working groups with open
participation may hold straw polls but, to avoid confusion, should
not describe the results using the terminology consensus.
The
term a majority vote of
the working group is recommended.
A 2/3
vote of the NC should be taken as meaning consensus on the issue and
the by-laws should be changed to remove the
obligation on the NC to
"determine community
consensus" with the implication it is an external
factor. Proposed wording for the by-laws change follows.
VI-B.2.d.
NEW
"If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC vote on a
recommendation thatrecommendation shall be
forwarded to the Board as
a consensus
recommendation."
"If more than
one-half (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC
vote on a recommendation that recommendation shall be forwarded to the Board as
an NC recommendation."
6. Minority viewpoints
Two task force
members had alternative opinions on three points.
GA Chair
The
representative of the GA believed the by-law requirement and
practise whereby the NC sanctions the election result of
the GA chair should be abolished.
New
constituencies
The representative of the GA, while not
dismissing the proposed criteria, believed that that the creation of
new constituencies should have no higher burden than the creation of initial
constituencies.
The representative of the NCDNHC proposed the new
criteria should be applied retroactively to all constituencies, if they were to
apply to new ones.
The representative of the NCDNHC
proposed making the GA itself a DNSO constituency to
represent individuals.
Consensus
The representative of the GA
preferred the term "working group consensus" in
place of "majority vote of
the working group".
The representative of the
NCDNHC did not consider the DNSO to be a
"representative body", believing that the current constituency structure
is
unbalanced and gives certain interests a
veto power over policy. The representative of the NCDNHC
also believed that open working groups better
reflect the views of the
relevant Internet community.
Appendix A
DNSO procedures for
Working Groups
Source: Implementation and adaptation of the
recommendations of WG D 2001
1. Definition of working
group
A working group is a group established by
the Names Council (NC) of the
Domain Name Supporting
Organisation (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) at its own initiative or
by way of considering a petition from the
General Assembly, and charged with a specific
task.
2. Objective
The objective of a Working Group is
to:
a) formulate positions on policies,
b)
facilitate the development of
consensus support for policies
c)
produce a report to the NC highlighting these positions
and level of
support.
3. Membership.
Working
Groups are open to all DNSO participants
defined as follows:
- members of the Names Council
- the
Names Council secretariat
- members of the ICANN Board
- the ICANN
officers and staff
- the GA Chair and Co-Chair
-
members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as
subscribers to the
ga@dnso.org , announce@dnso.org or the GA
voting register.
Persons new to the ICANN process who
wish to participate in a working group will be asked to join the ga-announce
list to qualify for membership.
Working Group membership is open
throughout the life of the Working Group.
4.
Criteria
Before establishing a working group the
Names Council will consider the following criteria:
a)
whether the issue is relevant to the mission of the DNSO
b) the need for
a consensus policy
c) whether the issue overlaps with that of an existing
Working Group
d) whether there is sufficient interest
within the DNSO in the issue and enough people willing
to expend the effort to produce the desired
result
e) whether there is enough
expertise within the DNSO on the issue.
5.
Terms of reference.
The Names Council will nominate an
individual or establish a small interim committee to draft
terms of reference (a charter) which will at
minimum
specify:
a) a narrow and achievable objective
b) a
timeframe for achieving the objective
c) a set of interim objectives by
which to measure progress
d) a member of the
Names Council who will act as a Supervisory
Chair.
e) a short descriptive name for the Working
Group.
The draft terms will be posted to the
NC list and the DNSO ga-announce mailing list as a public
notice that the formation of the Working Group is being considered.
After a review period lasting at least a week the
NC,
after reviewing comments, will approve the
original or modified terms.
Following this the DNSO
secretariat will establish:
* a mailing list or such other
electronic forum
* a procedure for subscribing and
un-subscribing to the Working Group
* a dedicated web page
on the DNSO web site (www.dnso.org)
* an accessible mailing list
archive.
6. Supervisory Chair and WG Chair
The Supervisory Chair
has five key functions.
a) to be
responsible for the initial
establishment of the WG.
b) to act as
returning officer for holding elections for a WG chair. These elections
should take place early but not too early once WG
participants have got to know one another. Specifically, a vote to
choose such a person
from early group participants whose chairing abilities
may be unknown should be avoided. The Supervisory Chair may themselves stand for
election in which case another NC member will supervise the election.
b)
to take on all the responsibilities of the Chair especially including the
start of substantive discussion,
until the election is complete.
c) to
provide frequent liaison with the Names Council.
d) to
ensure the WG Chair is fulfilling
his/her responsibilities.
The WG Chair?s key functions
are:
a) to be responsible for fulfilling the
terms of reference in the time specified,
b) to be
responsible for working group discipline, focus and
achievements,
c) to prepare
and chair face-to-face and
on-line sessions,
d) to ensure that the Working Group
operates in an open and fair manner,
e) to ensure that discussions
are relevant (the Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail subject
headers),
f) to intervene to stop off-topic communication,
g) to
summarise outcomes of each issue,
h) to achieve interim and final
objectives in conformance with the terms of reference.
And for face to
face meetings the WG Chair is required:
i) to ensure an attendance list
is made,
j) to publish a
short report on the session
within 10 days.
The WG Chair
and the Supervisory Chair report to the
Names Council.
7. Removal of the Supervisory Chair or Working Group
Chair
In the event that the WG Chair:
a) acts contrary to these
rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth in the Working Group?s terms
of reference, or
b) fails to achieve interim results then the
Supervisory Chair after consultation with the Names Council, upon
the
reasonable request of one or more Working Group members, shall have the
authority to remove and
hold elections for another
WG Chair.
In the event that the Supervisory Chair:
a)
acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth in the
Working Group?s terms of reference, or
b) fails to fulfil the
responsibilities of a Supervisory Chair, as set forth
above, then the Names
Council shall have the authority to remove and appoint another Supervisory
Chair.
8. New ideas
New ideas that are on-topic will
be made in a new thread with a subject heading that
succinctly and clearly identifies its subject matter. Ideas
that are off topic will be pointed out
by the WG Chair and stopped.
9. Procedural
questions
Any member of the Working Group may raise a question to
the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair that relates to the procedures
of the group (a point of
order). Any procedural question which is not
answered to the satisfaction of the person asking it should be
directed to the NC Intake Committee for
consideration.
nc-intake@dnso.org
10. Voting
From time to time progress will
be advanced by holding straw polls to determine the majority
view. A motion to approve a draft proposal or report
(or any
section thereof) may be made by any member of the Working
Group.
Once seconded and approved by the WG Chair, such
motion shall be put to a vote of the Working Group members. In such an
event, the WG Chair shall poll
the Working Group members. Motions
that receive a majority of votes cast shall be deemed
approved.
Consensus. Because of the diverse nature of open working
groups the results of any vote will be taken solely to assist with progress
within the group. A
majority vote of a working group should be described as a
majority vote of a working group. No claim to DNSO stakeholder
consensus should be attributed to such a vote.
11. Real time
work
Working Group members or subsets of the
group may meet in real-time (in person or via a
form of electronic conferencing). Decisions reached
or drafts developed during real-time meetings must be reviewed
on the mailing list or other forum.
12. Proposal
development
Groups drafting position statements should
publish them to the WG. Groups submitting interim
position statements should be free to revise
those
statements after reading the reports or
others. Working Groups should publish the position
statements for a period of comment,
specifically
seeking comments not only on the substance
of the positions but also on impact and cost issues. These
positions papers should not be the end result
of the Working Group?s efforts,
but should serve as tools for finding common ground and addressing
concerns of specific groups. Working Group members
should strive
to make compromises when appropriate.
13. Disputes and role of an interim
report
Many conflicts can be resolved by simple
votes. The majority view goes forward and is
documented in an interim report. However, where in
the
opinion of the WG Chair, there is a significant
minority proposal, this proposal should also be
documented in the interim report of the Working
Group.
The interim report should contain:
(a) an
abstract of all proposals which achieved a
meaningful level of support,
(b) a clear statement of what is being
proposed and its underlying rationale
(c) an analysis of who
and what systems might be impacted by the proposal
(d)
the specific steps that would be necessary to take to
implement the proposal
(e) the costs and risks, if any, of
implementing the proposal and how they would be borne
(f) a
statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal and what
support the proposal has in the various stakeholder
communities.