Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #783
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 10 2001         Volume 01 : Number 783

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 12:42:45 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] cenam fortunae

William X Walsh wrote:

 >Monday, Monday, October 08, 2001, 11:25:48 PM, Sotiris 
Sotiropoulos wrote:
 >
 >>There is a veritable orgiastic feeding frenzy on .info going
 >>on!  I am amazed at some of the things that have been
 >>registered.  What a cash cow this is turning out to be.  In
 >>a couple weeks its going to be Neulevel and Melbourne
 >>IT.
 >>
 >
 >>All this money... and no conferred rights OR say in the
 >>policy process.  WHAT IS A DOMAIN NAME?
 >>
 >
 >Yeah, you know, customers to restaurants and shoe stores 
should have
 >say in the policies of those businesses too, in proportion 
with the
 >amount of merchandise they purchase.
 >

Customers OWN the shoes they buy from shoe stores William. 
  A small but crucial difference.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

 >

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:51:45 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] cenam fortunae

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:28 AM
|> 
|> Tuesday, Tuesday, October 09, 2001, 2:09:52 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > If they all have the same policy-set then, to the 
|> consumer, it doesn't
|> > matter how many there are. I think that you know my 
|> standards by now
|> 
|> Yes, and you know I consider them excessive and unnecessary, and that
|> they would unnecessarily complicate the process from registry all the
|> way down to the consumer level.
|> 
|> Just because a maximum level of security protection is possible
|> doesn't mean it is necessary or desirable.

http://www.dnso.net/mhsc-tld.htm

That document spoke more towards reliability, a completely different
critter. 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 17:48:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC agenda

Joanna and all assembly members,

  It would seem that unfortunately you are quite right, Joanna.  However
this same problem also resides as a predominant behavior pattern
with the ICANN BoD and Staff, and has for some time now...

Joanna Lane wrote:

> on 10/5/01 12:13 PM, Jefsey Morfin at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > The Chair is to be a catalyst. There are more active than others. I must
> > say that when you have no tool as Danny has not (not site, no boot, no
> > consensus building tool), you have to use your voice. Well, Danny does it
> > well. But I would have preferred we got or build he tools.
> >
> > Jefsey
>
> Jefsey,
>
> It is not possible to build consensus in a tyranny. The GA's only weapon
> against tyranny is to stand united and state unequivocally that the NC is
> denying the fundamental human rights of individuals and others through its
> continuous refusal to make appropriate recommendations to the Board, and it
> is each and every member's responsibility to expel those who are responsible
> from the organisation. There are enough of us here to do it.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:12:29 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] cenam fortunae

- --part1_76.110c70f8.28f4fa7d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/8/01 11:47:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I am amazed at some of the things that have been 
> registered.  What a cash cow this is turning out to be.  

yep, and if they try really hard, they just might be able to live up to those 
projected losses at the 90% confidence level submitted by that brilliant 
management team of theirs.

Ray

- --part1_76.110c70f8.28f4fa7d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 10/8/01 11:47:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I am amazed at some of the things that have been 
<BR>registered. &nbsp;What a cash cow this is turning out to be. &nbsp;</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>yep, and if they try really hard, they just might be able to live up to those projected losses at the 90% confidence level submitted by that brilliant management team of theirs.
<BR>
<BR>Ray</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_76.110c70f8.28f4fa7d_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:21:30 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Proposed Action Plan on .info Country Names 

http://www.icann.org/montevideo/action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm
_________
[...]
 Proposed Action Plan

 The Board's resolution 01.93 directed the President to propose an
 action plan for rapid analysis of the technical and other issues
 related to the concerns raised by the GAC. The following plan is
 proposed pursuant to that resolution:

 1. To allow discussion of the issues raised by the GAC request
 concerning .info names, maintain reservation of the 327 .info names.

 The interim reservation of country and distinct economy names in
 .info enables the ICANN community to evaluate the technical and
 other issues related to the concerns raised by the GAC, and whether
 the temporarily reserved names in .info should be made available to
 governments and distinct economies at their request, as requested
 by the GAC and agreed to by Afilias. The reservation should be
 maintained until the March 2002 ICANN meeting in Accra.

 2. Convene a discussion group to explore appropriate ways of
 addressing the short-term issue of the disposition of the 327
 .info names.

 The GAC communiqué and ICANN Board resolutions in Montevideo show a
 divergence of opinions regarding the GAC's recommendations concerning
 country names within .info. To help resolve this divergence, a
 discussion group should be convened consisting of members of the
 ICANN Board and the GAC. In addition, representatives of Afilias and
 WIPO should be invited to join the group. The discussion group should
 invite input to the specific issue of assignment of these 327 names
 from the DNSO and other interested parties within the Internet
 community.

 The discussion group should address at least the following issues as
 part of its analysis. It should be emphasized that there is now a
 precise proposed list available that has been derived from ISO-3166
 and that this list has been endorsed by GAC, that is, the technical
 problems of which country lists to select has been superseded by the
 pragmatic acceptance of a precise list of names.

 a) Should ICANN prohibit the agreed arrangements for the assignment
 of up to the 327 of the temporarily "frozen" .info names to
 governments for use to support official informational websites? Are
 there considerations that require prohibiting the agreed arrangements?

 b) Would assignment of these .info country names impede future
 discussions regarding the general policy for country or distinct
 economy names in other TLDs?

 c) Would allowing the agreed arrangement for the .info country names
 create a precedent that could lead to similar requirements for other
 TLDs? Is the GAC willing to commit that reservations of country
 distinct economy names will not be sought in other TLDs at least
 until the outcome of the WIPO-2 discussions?

 The discussion group's conclusions should be provided to the ICANN
 Board before the Accra meeting in March 2002.

 3. Encourage the Domain Name Supporting Organization to evaluate
 possible approaches for longer-term arrangements concerning use of
 geographic names within the DNS, including having the matter
 addressed in other fora such as the WIPO-2 process.

 In addition to addressing the short-term issue of .info names as
 described above, attention should be given to the longer-term
 issue of how country names should be treated in other TLDs. This
 longer-term issue was raised in the November 2000 GAC communiqué
 and is also the subject of discussion within the WIPO-2 process
 and other intergovernmental fora.

 The Domain Name Supporting Organization should be encouraged to
 consider this long-term issue. It should include in its
 consideration whether the issue is better addressed outside the
 ICANN process, such as the WIPO-2 process and other intergovernmental
 fora.
_________

See also:
http://websvr01.afilias.info/whois_search/reserved_names
(I really like santasede-statodellacittadelvaticano.info...)

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:35:26 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Proposed Action Plan on .info Country Names 

Yes, it is critical that ICANN act now to protect "afghanistan.info" from
being taken by someone other than the Taliban.  How nice of ICANN to be
concerned about protecting their assets.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:23:51 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Task Force -Review report

C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C151B0.542E50E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]
[[email-masked]]
[constituency secretariats]

Please find the NC Task Force - Review report.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCtaskforce-report.html

Interim report of the Names Council task force on Review.                =
     =20

Start of public comment period ending midnight local time zone 28 =
October=20
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=20
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:=20
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
[email-masked]  ,      [email-masked]    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. [email-masked]

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.

14. Draft final report
The  goal of  the Working Group  process is  to produce a  Report =
containing recommendations for submission to the NC.
The Report should contain the following sections:

a) Executive summary of not more than 1000 words.

b) Terms of reference

c) Conclusion  - a clear and concise statement  of the proposal =
discussed in the Working Group and the conclusion reached.

d) Impact  analysis -  a full analysis  of who might  be impacted, =
including other supporting organisations, and in what ways, by such a =
policy.

e) Constituency impact reviews - a summary and analysis of evidence =
provided by DNSO constituencies.

f) Record of outreach  - a record of outreach to any segment of the =
Internet community that might be affected by the proposed policy.

g)  Minority  reports -  a  fair statement  of  points in  opposition =
and  a substantive analysis of their merits and the intensity of the =
opposition.

h) Supporting  arguments - a summary  of the best arguments  for =
adoption of the policy.

i) Risk/Cost  analysis - an analysis of the risks  and costs of the =
proposed policy.

15. Publication and comment period

The  interim  report should  be  published  to the  General Assembly,  =
Names Council and Constituency secretariats  for debate, comment and =
criticism and the resulting  feedback incorporated into a  Final Report. =
The Working Group shall  provide  such  comment   period  as  is  =
reasonable  considering  the complexity, importance, and urgency of the =
policy under consideration.

16. Final report

The final  report shall  be submitted by  the WG Chair to  the Names =
Council within   the   time   frame   specified   in   the   terms   of  =
 reference.

17. Termination

Working Groups  will be disbanded automatically  on completion of their =
task or  disbanded  by  the   Names  Council  earlier  if  deadlock  is  =
evident.

18. Revising the terms of reference

The terms of reference may be re-visited by the Names Council on the =
request of the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair.

Appendix B

Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies
1. Need

1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?

1.2 What  would the proposed new constituency bring to  the DNSO that is =
now
lacking?

2. Common interest

2.1  What commonality  of  interest would  the members  of the  proposed =
new
constituency share?

3. Distinction

3.1  How  much overlap  in  membership is  there  likely to  be between  =
the
proposed new constituency and  existing constituencies, the General =
Assembly
and other parts of ICANN?

4. Representation

4.1 How representative of  the stated common interest would the proposed =
new
constituency be?

4.2 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency =
taken to
establish a hierarchy of representativeness and openness within the =
proposed
new constituency?

5. Alternatives

5.1  Are  there alternative  means  of  fulfilling the  stated need  =
besides
recognition of a new constituency?

5.2 Are there other  places within the ICANN structure where this need =
could
be fulfilled?

6. Organisation on a global scale

6.1 What  steps have the  proponents of the proposed  new constituency =
taken
to organise the proposed new constituency?

6.2 Have  the proponents  of the proposed new  constituency demonstrated =
the
capability  to  command the  financial  and  human resources  required =
by  a
constituency?

7. Support within the DNSO

7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency =
taken to
seek support from existing constituencies?

8. Impact assessment

8.1 What  would be the impact  of the proposed new  constituency on =
existing
constituencies?

8.2  What  would be  the  impact of  the  proposed new  constituency on  =
the
finances and administration of the DNSO?

8.3  What would  be the impact  of the  proposed new constituency  on =
policy
formation within the DNSO?
- -------------------------------------------------
Information from:  =A9 DNSO Names Council

DNSO Secretariat

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C151B0.542E50E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>[[email-masked]]<BR>[[email-masked]]<BR>[[email-masked]]<BR></=
FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>[constituency secretariats]</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>Please find the NC Task Force - Review =
report.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCtaskforce-report.html">=
<FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCtaskforce-report.html<=
/FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>Interim report of the Names Council =
task force on=20
Review.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
<BR><BR>Start of public comment period ending midnight local time zone =
28=20
October <BR>2001.<BR><BR>&nbsp; Please find attached the above mentioned =
report=20
from the Names Council task&nbsp;force on review. Please note the task =
force was=20
given concise terms of&nbsp; reference and not all issues relating to =
DNSO=20
review orICANN restructuring are intended to be included. Many issues of =

organisation and structure are now under discussion in the NC structure =
task=20
force.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>Your comments=20
are welcome on this Interim report. After the close of the comment =
period on 28=20
October, the task force will consider comments received and produce a =
final=20
report for submission to the Names Council. The target <BR>date for this =
is the=20
November meeting in Los=20
Angeles.<BR><BR>_________________________________________________________=
<BR>ICANN/DNSO<BR>Interim=20
report of the Names Council review task force, September =
2</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>&nbsp;-----------------------------------------------<BR>Timelin=
e and=20
process<BR>30&nbsp;&nbsp; September&nbsp;&nbsp; Deadline&nbsp;&nbsp; =
for&nbsp;=20
task&nbsp;&nbsp; force&nbsp;&nbsp; comment&nbsp;&nbsp; on&nbsp;=20
first&nbsp;&nbsp; draft.<BR>7&nbsp;&nbsp; October&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
Deadline&nbsp;&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; task&nbsp;&nbsp; =
force&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
comment&nbsp;&nbsp; on&nbsp;&nbsp; second&nbsp;&nbsp; draft<BR>28 =
October&nbsp;=20
Deadline for comment&nbsp; on interim report sent&nbsp; for public =
comment and=20
to NC.<BR>4&nbsp;&nbsp; November&nbsp;&nbsp; Deadline&nbsp;&nbsp; =
for&nbsp;=20
final&nbsp;&nbsp; report&nbsp;&nbsp; produced&nbsp;&nbsp; by&nbsp;=20
task&nbsp;&nbsp; force.<BR>13 November Final report adopted by NC at LA=20
meeting<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>Authority and=20
terms of reference<BR><BR>Names Council&nbsp; business plan&nbsp; =
2001-2002 and=20
NC endorsed&nbsp; proposal of interim review task force May=20
2001.<BR><BR>&nbsp;6.2. Consultation. Review the recommendations of WG D =
and the=20
Review Task Force and Working Group Report and implement a means of =
outreach and=20
stakeholder consultation with built-in mechanisms for fulfilling the=20
objectives.<BR><BR>ACTION: Accept the framework proposed by WG-D as is, =
and turn=20
the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines. Give it a chance =
to work,=20
if it doesn't, then take steps to make alternative proposals. Related to =
this,=20
determine alternatives to conducting working group activities, such as =
using=20
web-based fora where&nbsp;proposed text is actively amended and worked =
on=20
towards consensus.<BR><BR>6.3. GA Chair. Review the current system of =
election=20
for the General Assembly Chair and propose changes if=20
required.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>ACTION: Form a=20
small group (or include in a possible<BR>implementation task force =
mandate) to=20
report on the current system of elections for the GA chair, and assess =
whether=20
changes are beneficial or required.<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>&nbsp;6.4.=20
Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential =
contribution=20
and representativeness of an individual domain name holder's=20
constituency.<BR><BR>ACTION: There is strong support for an individuals=20
constituency. The outstanding issue is next steps. Options to discuss on =
next=20
steps are: </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>1) Making the=20
GA the basis for the constituency, or 2)<BR>&nbsp;Accepting independent=20
proposals by a certain date, or 3) Form a task force (7 constituencies) =
to set=20
the criteria for an&nbsp;individual constituency (reviewing work already =
done=20
and consolidating it into a proposal).<BR><BR>6.5 Language diversity. =
Recommend=20
cost effective means to provide&nbsp;language diversity in the context =
of DNSO=20
decisions. Form a small group (3-5) who may co-opt translation experts =
to make=20
recommendations.<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>&nbsp;ACTION:=20
Determine costs, and next steps to implement a cost effective means to =
provide=20
translations.<BR><BR>6.6. Consensus. Recommend to the NC a practical =
definition=20
of consensus for the purposes of NC consultation =
activities.<BR><BR>ACTION: Form=20
a task force (7 constituencies) to review consensus models used =
elsewhere and=20
outline practical definition.<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>1. Consultation=20
(business plan reference 6.2)<BR><BR>Recommendation on working=20
groups<BR><BR>The&nbsp; adoption&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp; =
guidelines&nbsp;=20
for&nbsp; working&nbsp; groups in&nbsp; appendix&nbsp; A&nbsp; is=20
recommended.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>Web-based&nbsp;=20
fora&nbsp; as&nbsp; alternatives&nbsp; to conducting&nbsp; working&nbsp; =

group&nbsp; activities<BR><BR>The task force intentionally decide to use =
for its=20
own work, and thus trial a web-based&nbsp; for a recommended by a member =
of=20
the&nbsp; task force. The results of<BR>the trial&nbsp; were =
inconclusive=20
but&nbsp; in comparison with the&nbsp; exchange of e-mail via&nbsp; =
lists&nbsp;=20
there&nbsp; seemed&nbsp; little&nbsp; advantage. Most&nbsp; =
notably,&nbsp;=20
the&nbsp; following irritations were found:<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * there =
were too=20
many options for posting information<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * an =
announcements=20
section truncated long messages<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * an =
auto-notification=20
option had to be activated and offered too =
many<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
options<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * the system was overly geared to frequent=20
voting<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * there was no neat way of segregating =
separate=20
threads, to enable several discussions to occur simultaneously.<BR><BR>A =

separate trial of a free service enabling audio and video conferencing =
was also=20
undergone&nbsp; by some task force&nbsp; members. Getting the =
system&nbsp; to=20
work wasnot easy. It was&nbsp; subsequently found also that the system =
will not=20
work when the user is behind&nbsp; a NAT. This was felt to be a severe=20
limitation given the increasing need for network=20
security.<BR><BR>Recommendation<BR><BR>Further input from other =
web-based fora=20
is welcome but at this time adoption of&nbsp; any&nbsp;&nbsp; one&nbsp;=20
model&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp; place&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; e-mail&nbsp; =
lists&nbsp;=20
is&nbsp;&nbsp; not&nbsp; recommended.<BR><BR>2. Election of the General =
Assembly=20
(GA) Chair (business plan reference 6.3)<BR><BR>Article VI-B.2.i of the =
by-laws=20
states:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>"The&nbsp;&nbsp; NC&nbsp; shall&nbsp;&nbsp; elect&nbsp; =
the&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
Chairman&nbsp; of&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; GA&nbsp; =
annually".<BR><BR>The&nbsp; NC=20
for the&nbsp; years 2000 and&nbsp; 2001 has&nbsp; interpreted this =
by&nbsp;=20
adopting the following practice:<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * the GA is invited =
to make=20
nominations<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * nominations receiving 10 endorsements =
go=20
forward to an election by the GA<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * the GA proposes =
to the NC=20
the winner and runner-up as the new GA chair and alternate chair=20
respectively<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * the NC endorses the recommendation by =
a=20
formal vote.<BR><BR>In considering the practice the task force believes =
this=20
process allows full democratic participation&nbsp; within the GA,&nbsp; =
and=20
presents the NC&nbsp; with a simple decision when all is satisfactory =
with the=20
election process.<BR><BR>The&nbsp; additional safeguard&nbsp; of =
an&nbsp; NC=20
vote&nbsp; (in compliance with&nbsp; the by-laws) seems appropriate for =
two=20
reasons:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>a) despite the=20
tendency&nbsp; for the GA mail lists to be dominated by people not=20
choosing&nbsp; to&nbsp; participate via&nbsp; constituencies&nbsp; =
and&nbsp;=20
sometimes excluded&nbsp; from<BR>participation, the GA chair should =
nevertheless=20
represent all constituencies and so&nbsp; participation by the NC as =
a&nbsp;=20
body elected by current constituencies seems to be correct,<BR>b) =
the&nbsp;=20
endorsement process provides a safeguard&nbsp; in the event of =
objections=20
to&nbsp; the&nbsp; electoral process.&nbsp; Discussion&nbsp; following =
the&nbsp;=20
2001 election&nbsp; would appear to vindicate the existence of such a=20
safeguard.<BR>Recommendation<BR>There does&nbsp; not appear&nbsp; to be =
a&nbsp;=20
demonstrated need to&nbsp; seek a&nbsp; change in the ICANN by-laws at=20
present.<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>3. New=20
Constituencies (business plan reference 6.4)<BR><BR>The task&nbsp; force =
chose=20
option three&nbsp; from the terms of&nbsp; reference but did not =
consider&nbsp;=20
itself&nbsp; the competent&nbsp; body&nbsp; to&nbsp; set criteria&nbsp; =
for=20
an&nbsp; individuals constituency per&nbsp; se. The task force&nbsp; =
decided=20
therefore to produce&nbsp; a set of<BR>criteria which&nbsp; would help =
to=20
clarify&nbsp; questions of purpose, duplication and representation for =
any new=20
DNSO constituency.<BR><BR>ICANN by-laws VI-b.3.d<BR><BR>"Any group&nbsp; =
of=20
individuals or entities&nbsp; may petition the Board for =
recognition&nbsp; as a=20
new&nbsp; or separate&nbsp; Constituency. ? The&nbsp; Board may create =
new&nbsp;=20
Constituencies in response to such&nbsp; a petition ? if=20
it<BR>&nbsp;determines&nbsp; that&nbsp; such&nbsp; action would&nbsp;=20
serve&nbsp; the&nbsp; purposes of&nbsp; the&nbsp;Corporation.&nbsp; =
?..Whenever=20
the&nbsp; Board&nbsp; posts a&nbsp; petition ?&nbsp; it will notify =
the&nbsp;=20
names council&nbsp; and will consider any&nbsp; response to=20
that&nbsp;notification prior to taking action."<BR>In other&nbsp; words =
any=20
group may ask the Board and&nbsp; the Board will consult with the Names =
Council.=20
It is therefore necessary for the Names Council to have a<BR>basis upon =
which to=20
evaluate any such petition.<BR><BR>Recommendation<BR>It&nbsp; is&nbsp;=20
recommended that&nbsp; the&nbsp; petitioner&nbsp; for a&nbsp; new&nbsp; =
DNSO=20
constituency&nbsp; is requested by the Names Council to include in any =
petition=20
the answers to the questions specified in appendix B.<BR><BR>The&nbsp;=20
task&nbsp; force believes&nbsp; the&nbsp; petitioners of&nbsp; an=20
individuals&nbsp; constituency previously communicated&nbsp; to the =
Board=20
should&nbsp; be warmly encouraged to answer<BR>these =
questions.<BR><BR>4.=20
Language diversity (business plan reference 6.5)<BR>In seeking&nbsp; to=20
recommend cost effective&nbsp; means to provide language diversity in =
the&nbsp;=20
context of DNSO decisions,&nbsp; the task force was&nbsp; cognisant of=20
current<BR>DNSO&nbsp; finances.&nbsp;&nbsp; The&nbsp; entire&nbsp; =
costs&nbsp;=20
of&nbsp; running&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; DNSO&nbsp; are&nbsp; born&nbsp; =
by=20
contributions raised by the&nbsp; constituencies - a process which both =
imposes=20
a<BR>burden&nbsp; on some&nbsp; constituencies&nbsp; and wastes&nbsp; =
time&nbsp;=20
for all.&nbsp; The task&nbsp; force quickly&nbsp; agreed not to&nbsp; =
waste=20
time&nbsp; in seeking translations&nbsp; from commercial =
suppliers&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
because,&nbsp; at&nbsp;&nbsp; this&nbsp; time,&nbsp;&nbsp; there&nbsp; =
is&nbsp;=20
no&nbsp;&nbsp; finance&nbsp; available.<BR><BR>Given also&nbsp; that =
throughout=20
the existence of the DNSO&nbsp; there has been a call for&nbsp; =
consistent=20
voluntary translation&nbsp; that has&nbsp; not been answered&nbsp; the =
task=20
force also decided not&nbsp; to pursue this option further at this time. =
The=20
task<BR>force would be delighted to hear from volunteers alerted to this =
need=20
during the public&nbsp; consultation phase of this report.&nbsp; =
However, the=20
task force also recognises&nbsp; that a piecemeal&nbsp; approach =
to&nbsp;=20
translation is not&nbsp; desirable and<BR>that any voluntary =
effort&nbsp; has to=20
be sustainable, based on a coherent set of languages, and be of reliable =

quality.<BR><BR>The task&nbsp; force therefore chose to&nbsp; explore =
options=20
for machine translation.<BR>It&nbsp; was&nbsp; however&nbsp; =
unable&nbsp;=20
to&nbsp; find&nbsp; a&nbsp; recommendation&nbsp; by&nbsp; any&nbsp; =
professional=20
translator for&nbsp; any of&nbsp; the free internet-based =
translation&nbsp;=20
services. It is also&nbsp; likely&nbsp; that&nbsp; even where&nbsp;=20
machine&nbsp; translation&nbsp; is used,&nbsp; =
professional<BR>translators,=20
familiar with ICANN&nbsp; jargon, would be needed to finish the =
job.<BR>Some=20
professional translators have&nbsp; commented that using machine =
translation as=20
a&nbsp; starting point&nbsp; can be more&nbsp; time-consuming than=20
translating&nbsp; from the original, because the translator has to work =
out why=20
the machine translation<BR>got the context or sense wrong and then=20
correct.<BR><BR>Further more, should it be the case that one or other of =
these=20
machine-based services are useful if not optimal, they are of course =
available=20
now for any<BR>internet user to translate any page from the DNSO web =
site. This=20
possibility is at&nbsp; present the best option for&nbsp; cost-effective =

translation. It would not seem appropriate without extensive trials for =
the DNSO=20
to recommend one site above&nbsp; others. The&nbsp; task force&nbsp; =
would=20
welcome&nbsp; any intervention&nbsp; which would advance this objective=20
further.<BR>Recommendation<BR>Given its&nbsp; highly limited&nbsp; =
resources and=20
the higher&nbsp; priority of substantive policy issues,&nbsp; the =
DNSO&nbsp;=20
should not spend&nbsp; more time on this,&nbsp; but note the progress=20
being&nbsp; made by ICANN staff in this&nbsp; regard and where =
appropriate to=20
participate in any cost-effective solution.<BR><BR>5. Consensus =
(business plan=20
reference 6.6)<BR>Relevance<BR>The task&nbsp; force was asked to&nbsp; =
recommend=20
to the NC&nbsp; a practical definition of consensus&nbsp; for&nbsp; the=20
purposes&nbsp; of&nbsp; NC consultation&nbsp; activities. =
Consensus&nbsp; is=20
relevant&nbsp; to DNSO&nbsp; decision making as&nbsp; it is&nbsp; =
referenced in=20
the&nbsp; by-laws and provides certain information to the=20
Board.<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>VI-B.2.b.&nbsp;=20
"The&nbsp; NC&nbsp; is&nbsp; responsible&nbsp; for the&nbsp; =
management&nbsp;=20
of&nbsp; the consensus building process of the =
DNSO."<BR><BR>&nbsp;VI-B.2.d. "If=20
two-thirds (2/3)&nbsp; of the members of the NC determin that&nbsp; the=20
DNSO&nbsp; process has&nbsp; produced a community&nbsp; consensus,=20
that&nbsp;consensus position shall be&nbsp; forwarded to the Board as a=20
consensus recommendation."<BR><BR>&nbsp;"If more than one-half (1/2) but =
less=20
than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of&nbsp; the NC determine that =
the&nbsp;=20
DNSO process has produced a&nbsp;community consensus,&nbsp; that =
position may=20
be&nbsp; forwarded to the Board as a NC recommendation."<BR><BR>In&nbsp; =
the=20
past&nbsp; the&nbsp; chairs of&nbsp; DNSO working&nbsp; groups&nbsp; =
have=20
tried&nbsp; to establish<BR>guidance to the NC about the degree of =
consensus=20
within the working group on issues, in order to help with the subsequent =
NC=20
recommendation to the Board.<BR>There has not been consistency in this=20
guidance.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>Definitions and=20
usage<BR>Lexicon definitions provide some help.<BR><BR>Consensus,&nbsp; =
n.&nbsp;=20
Agreement&nbsp; (of&nbsp; opinion,&nbsp; testimony, etc.)&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
Concise&nbsp; Oxford Dictionary<BR><BR>Consensus, n. a) general =
agreement,=20
unanimity.<BR><BR>b) the&nbsp; judgement arrived at&nbsp; by most of =
those&nbsp;=20
concerned. Merriam-Webster?s<BR>Dictionary<BR><BR>The most&nbsp; useful=20
definition here is&nbsp; "judgement arrived at by&nbsp; most of those=20
concerned"&nbsp;&nbsp; but&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
make&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; this&nbsp;&nbsp; practical&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
needs&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; two&nbsp;&nbsp; enablers:<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * =
a=20
representative sample of DNSO stakeholders<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * a vote =
of this=20
sample with a pre-determined threshold.<BR><BR>Where&nbsp;&nbsp; =
do&nbsp;=20
we&nbsp;&nbsp; find&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp; representative&nbsp;&nbsp; =
sample&nbsp;=20
of&nbsp;&nbsp; DNSO&nbsp; stakeholders?<BR><BR>DNSO&nbsp; working&nbsp;=20
groups&nbsp; as&nbsp;&nbsp; currently&nbsp; formed&nbsp; are&nbsp; =
by&nbsp;=20
construction&nbsp; not&nbsp; a representative&nbsp; sample&nbsp; =
of&nbsp;=20
DNSO&nbsp; stakeholders&nbsp; because&nbsp; they&nbsp; are&nbsp; =
open&nbsp;=20
to<BR>participation by anyone who chooses. It is possible but improbable =
that=20
such a group will at&nbsp; any moment in time be so representative. This =

suggests that<BR>discussing consensus&nbsp; in such groups&nbsp; is =
unlikely to=20
be&nbsp; productive and that the guidance given to the NC will be=20
poor.<BR><BR>The&nbsp; Names Council&nbsp; is constructed&nbsp; to =
represent=20
DNSO&nbsp; stakeholder interests and,&nbsp; notwithstanding =
demands&nbsp;=20
by&nbsp; individuals to&nbsp; participate, is&nbsp; the best structure =
we=20
currently have to be representative. This validates the by-laws faith =
in&nbsp;=20
the NC as being a possible home for&nbsp; consensus itself but does not =
help=20
the&nbsp; NC in its task&nbsp; of having to "determine&nbsp; that the =
DNSO=20
process has<BR>produced a community consensus".<BR><BR>In essence the =
by-laws=20
charge the NC with a task but offer no help as to howthe task should be =
done. It=20
seems therefore that the most logical route (andindeed the route that =
experience=20
shows us is the one that has been followed) is to&nbsp; say that the NC =
vote=20
itself on&nbsp; a recommendation, being reflective of<BR>the&nbsp; =
elected=20
representatives&nbsp; of&nbsp; DNSO stakeholders,&nbsp; is the&nbsp; =
only=20
practical means of determining community=20
consensus.<BR><BR>Recommendation<BR><BR>Working groups&nbsp; with open=20
participation&nbsp; may hold straw polls&nbsp; but, to avoid confusion, =
should=20
not describe&nbsp; the results using the terminology =
consensus.<BR>The&nbsp;=20
term&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a&nbsp;&nbsp; majority&nbsp; vote&nbsp; =
of&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
the&nbsp; working&nbsp; group&nbsp;&nbsp; is&nbsp; recommended.<BR><BR>A =
2/3=20
vote&nbsp; of the NC should be taken as meaning&nbsp; consensus on the =
issue and=20
the&nbsp; by-laws&nbsp; should be&nbsp; changed&nbsp; to&nbsp; remove =
the&nbsp;=20
obligation&nbsp; on&nbsp; the NC&nbsp; to<BR>"determine&nbsp; =
community&nbsp;=20
consensus" with&nbsp; the&nbsp; implication it&nbsp; is an&nbsp; =
external=20
factor. Proposed wording for the by-laws change =
follows.<BR><BR>VI-B.2.d.=20
NEW<BR><BR>"If two-thirds (2/3) of&nbsp; the members of the NC vote on a =

recommendation thatrecommendation&nbsp; shall&nbsp;&nbsp; be&nbsp;=20
forwarded&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; the&nbsp; Board&nbsp;&nbsp; as&nbsp;=20
a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; consensus<BR>recommendation."<BR><BR>"If more&nbsp; =
than=20
one-half (1/2) but less than&nbsp; two-thirds (2/3) of the members of =
the NC=20
vote on a recommendation that recommendation shall be forwarded to the =
Board as=20
an NC recommendation."<BR><BR>6. Minority viewpoints<BR><BR>Two task =
force=20
members had alternative opinions on three points.<BR><BR>GA =
Chair<BR><BR>The=20
representative&nbsp; of the&nbsp; GA believed the by-law&nbsp; =
requirement and=20
practise whereby&nbsp; the NC&nbsp; sanctions the&nbsp; election =
result&nbsp; of=20
the&nbsp; GA chair&nbsp; should be abolished.<BR><BR>New=20
constituencies<BR><BR>The representative&nbsp; of the&nbsp; GA, while =
not=20
dismissing&nbsp; the proposed criteria, believed that that the&nbsp; =
creation of=20
new constituencies should have no higher burden than the creation of =
initial=20
constituencies.<BR><BR>The representative of the NCDNHC proposed the new =

criteria should be applied retroactively to all constituencies, if they =
were to=20
apply to new ones.<BR><BR>The&nbsp; representative of&nbsp; the&nbsp; =
NCDNHC=20
proposed&nbsp; making&nbsp; the GA&nbsp; itself a&nbsp; DNSO =
constituency to=20
represent individuals.<BR><BR>Consensus<BR><BR>The representative of the =
GA=20
preferred the term "working group consensus" in<BR>place of "majority =
vote of=20
the working group".<BR><BR>The&nbsp; representative&nbsp; of&nbsp; =
the&nbsp;=20
NCDNHC did&nbsp; not&nbsp; consider&nbsp; the&nbsp; DNSO&nbsp; to =
be&nbsp; a=20
"representative body", believing that&nbsp; the current constituency =
structure=20
is<BR>unbalanced&nbsp; and&nbsp; gives&nbsp; certain&nbsp; interests =
a&nbsp;=20
veto&nbsp; power&nbsp; over policy.&nbsp; The representative of&nbsp; =
the NCDNHC=20
also believed&nbsp; that open working groups better<BR>reflect the views =
of the=20
relevant Internet community.<BR><BR>Appendix A<BR><BR>DNSO procedures =
for=20
Working Groups<BR><BR>Source: Implementation and adaptation of the=20
recommendations of WG D 2001<BR><BR><BR><BR>1. Definition of working=20
group<BR><BR>A&nbsp; working group is&nbsp; a group established&nbsp; by =

the&nbsp; Names Council (NC)&nbsp; of the<BR>Domain Name&nbsp; =
Supporting=20
Organisation (DNSO) of&nbsp; the Internet Corporation =
for<BR>Assigned&nbsp;=20
Names and&nbsp; Numbers&nbsp; (ICANN) at&nbsp; its own&nbsp; =
initiative&nbsp; or=20
by&nbsp; way of considering&nbsp; a&nbsp; petition&nbsp; from&nbsp; the=20
General&nbsp; Assembly,&nbsp; and&nbsp; charged with&nbsp; a specific=20
task.<BR><BR>2. Objective<BR><BR>The objective of a Working Group is=20
to:<BR><BR>a) formulate positions on policies,<BR><BR>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
facilitate&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; development&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;=20
consensus&nbsp;&nbsp; support&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp; =
policies<BR><BR>c)&nbsp;=20
produce a&nbsp; report to the&nbsp; NC highlighting&nbsp; these =
positions=20
and&nbsp; level of<BR>support.<BR><BR>3. =
Membership.<BR><BR>Working&nbsp;=20
Groups&nbsp; are&nbsp; open&nbsp; to all&nbsp; DNSO&nbsp; =
participants&nbsp;=20
defined as&nbsp; follows:<BR><BR>- members of the Names Council<BR><BR>- =
the=20
Names Council secretariat<BR><BR>- members of the ICANN Board<BR><BR>- =
the ICANN=20
officers and staff<BR><BR>- the GA Chair and Co-Chair<BR><BR>-&nbsp;=20
members&nbsp; of the&nbsp; General&nbsp; Assembly (GA)&nbsp; =
defined&nbsp; as=20
subscribers&nbsp; to the<BR></FONT><A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>[email-masked]</FONT></A><FONT =
face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>&nbsp; ,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>[email-masked]</FONT></A><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"=20
size=3D3>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; =
GA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
voting&nbsp;&nbsp; register.<BR><BR>Persons new to the&nbsp; ICANN =
process who=20
wish to participate in a working group will be asked to join the =
ga-announce=20
list to qualify for membership.<BR><BR>Working Group&nbsp; membership is =
open=20
throughout the&nbsp; life of the Working Group.<BR><BR>4.=20
Criteria<BR><BR>Before&nbsp; establishing a&nbsp; working group&nbsp; =
the=20
Names&nbsp; Council will&nbsp; consider the following =
criteria:<BR><BR>a)=20
whether the issue is relevant to the mission of the DNSO<BR><BR>b) the =
need for=20
a consensus policy<BR><BR>c) whether the issue overlaps with that of an =
existing=20
Working Group<BR><BR>d) whether&nbsp; there is&nbsp; sufficient interest =

within&nbsp; the DNSO in&nbsp; the issue and enough people&nbsp; willing =

to&nbsp; expend the effort&nbsp; to produce the&nbsp; desired=20
result<BR><BR>e)&nbsp; whether&nbsp; there&nbsp; is&nbsp; enough&nbsp;=20
expertise&nbsp; within&nbsp; the DNSO&nbsp; on&nbsp; the&nbsp; =
issue.<BR><BR>5.=20
Terms of reference.<BR><BR>The Names&nbsp; Council will nominate an=20
individual&nbsp; or establish a small interim committee&nbsp; to =
draft&nbsp;=20
terms of&nbsp; reference (a&nbsp; charter) which will&nbsp; at=20
minimum<BR>specify:<BR><BR>a) a narrow and achievable =
objective<BR><BR>b) a=20
timeframe for achieving the objective<BR><BR>c) a set of interim =
objectives by=20
which to measure progress<BR><BR>d)&nbsp; a member&nbsp; of&nbsp; the=20
Names&nbsp; Council who&nbsp; will act&nbsp; as a&nbsp; Supervisory=20
Chair.<BR><BR>e) a short descriptive name for the Working=20
Group.<BR><BR>The&nbsp; draft terms&nbsp; will be&nbsp; posted to&nbsp; =
the=20
NC&nbsp; list and the&nbsp; DNSO ga-announce mailing list&nbsp; as a =
public=20
notice that the formation&nbsp; of the Working Group is being&nbsp; =
considered.=20
After&nbsp; a review period&nbsp; lasting at&nbsp; least a week&nbsp; =
the=20
NC,<BR>after&nbsp; reviewing&nbsp; comments, will&nbsp; approve&nbsp; =
the=20
original&nbsp; or modified&nbsp; terms.<BR><BR>Following this the DNSO=20
secretariat will establish:<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * a mailing list or such =
other=20
electronic forum<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * a procedure for subscribing and=20
un-subscribing to the Working Group<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * a dedicated =
web page=20
on the DNSO web site (</FONT><A href=3D"http://www.dnso.org"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>www.dnso.org</FONT></A><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3>)<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; * an accessible =
mailing list=20
archive.<BR><BR>6. Supervisory Chair and WG Chair<BR><BR>The Supervisory =
Chair=20
has five key functions.<BR><BR>a)&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; be&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
responsible&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; initial&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
establishment&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; WG.<BR><BR>b) to&nbsp; act =
as=20
returning officer for holding elections&nbsp; for a WG chair. These =
elections=20
should&nbsp; take place&nbsp; early but not&nbsp; too early once&nbsp; =
WG=20
participants have got&nbsp; to know one another. Specifically, a =
vote&nbsp; to=20
choose such a person<BR>from early group participants whose chairing =
abilities=20
may be unknown should be avoided. The Supervisory Chair may themselves =
stand for=20
election in which case another NC member will supervise the =
election.<BR><BR>b)=20
to take on all the responsibilities of the Chair especially including =
the=20
start&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp; substantive&nbsp;&nbsp; discussion,&nbsp;=20
until&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp; election&nbsp;&nbsp; is&nbsp; =
complete.<BR><BR>c) to=20
provide frequent liaison with the Names Council.<BR><BR>d)&nbsp; =
to&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
ensure&nbsp; the&nbsp; WG&nbsp; Chair&nbsp;&nbsp; is&nbsp; =
fulfilling&nbsp;=20
his/her&nbsp; responsibilities.<BR><BR>The WG Chair?s key functions=20
are:<BR><BR>a)&nbsp; to be&nbsp; responsible for&nbsp; fulfilling =
the&nbsp;=20
terms of&nbsp; reference in&nbsp; the time specified,<BR><BR>b) to&nbsp; =
be=20
responsible for working&nbsp; group discipline, focus and=20
achievements,<BR><BR>c)&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
prepare&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
and&nbsp;&nbsp; chair&nbsp;&nbsp; face-to-face&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
and&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
on-line&nbsp;&nbsp; sessions,<BR><BR>d) to ensure that the Working Group =

operates in an open and fair manner,<BR><BR>e) to&nbsp; ensure that =
discussions=20
are relevant (the&nbsp; Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail =
subject=20
headers),<BR><BR>f) to intervene to stop off-topic =
communication,<BR><BR>g) to=20
summarise outcomes of each issue,<BR><BR>h) to achieve interim&nbsp; and =
final=20
objectives in conformance with the terms of reference.<BR><BR>And for =
face to=20
face meetings the WG Chair is required:<BR><BR>i) to ensure an =
attendance list=20
is made,<BR><BR>j)&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp; publish&nbsp;&nbsp; =
a&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
short&nbsp; report&nbsp;&nbsp; on&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp; session&nbsp;=20
within&nbsp;&nbsp; 10&nbsp; days.<BR><BR>The&nbsp; WG&nbsp; Chair&nbsp;=20
and&nbsp; the Supervisory&nbsp; Chair&nbsp; report&nbsp; to&nbsp; the=20
Names&nbsp; Council.<BR><BR>7. Removal of the Supervisory Chair or =
Working Group=20
Chair<BR><BR>In the event that the WG Chair:<BR><BR>a) acts contrary to =
these=20
rules and procedures or beyond the scope set forth in the Working =
Group?s terms=20
of reference, or<BR><BR>b) fails to achieve interim results then =
the&nbsp;=20
Supervisory Chair after consultation&nbsp; with the Names Council, =
upon<BR>the=20
reasonable request of&nbsp; one or more Working Group members, shall =
have the=20
authority&nbsp;&nbsp; to&nbsp;&nbsp; remove&nbsp;&nbsp; and&nbsp;=20
hold&nbsp;&nbsp; elections&nbsp;&nbsp; for&nbsp;&nbsp; another&nbsp;=20
WG&nbsp;&nbsp; Chair.<BR><BR>In the event that the Supervisory =
Chair:<BR><BR>a)=20
acts contrary to these rules and procedures or beyond the scope set =
forth in the=20
Working Group?s terms of reference, or<BR><BR>b) fails to fulfil the=20
responsibilities of a Supervisory Chair, as set forth<BR>above, then the =
Names=20
Council shall have the authority to remove and appoint another =
Supervisory=20
Chair.<BR><BR>8. New ideas<BR><BR>New ideas&nbsp; that are&nbsp; =
on-topic will=20
be&nbsp; made in a&nbsp; new thread&nbsp; with a subject heading&nbsp; =
that=20
succinctly&nbsp; and clearly&nbsp; identifies its subject&nbsp; matter. =
Ideas=20
that&nbsp; are&nbsp; off topic&nbsp; will&nbsp; be&nbsp; pointed =
out&nbsp;=20
by&nbsp; the WG&nbsp; Chair and&nbsp; stopped.<BR><BR>9. Procedural=20
questions<BR><BR>Any member of the&nbsp; Working Group may raise a =
question to=20
the WG Chair or the Supervisory Chair&nbsp; that relates to the&nbsp; =
procedures=20
of the group&nbsp; (a point of<BR>order). Any procedural question which =
is not=20
answered to the satisfaction of the&nbsp; person asking&nbsp; it =
should&nbsp; be=20
directed&nbsp; to the&nbsp; NC Intake&nbsp; Committee =
for<BR>consideration.=20
</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>[email-masked]</FONT></A><BR><BR><FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>10. Voting<BR><BR>From&nbsp; time to&nbsp; time&nbsp; progress =
will&nbsp;=20
be advanced&nbsp; by&nbsp; holding straw&nbsp; polls to determine the =
majority=20
view.&nbsp; A motion to approve a draft proposal or report<BR>(or =
any&nbsp;=20
section thereof)&nbsp; may be made&nbsp; by any member of&nbsp; the =
Working=20
Group.<BR>Once seconded&nbsp; and approved by the&nbsp; WG Chair, such=20
motion&nbsp; shall be put to a vote of the Working Group members. In =
such an=20
event, the WG Chair shall poll<BR>the Working&nbsp; Group members.&nbsp; =
Motions=20
that receive&nbsp; a majority of&nbsp; votes cast shall be deemed=20
approved.<BR><BR>Consensus. Because of the&nbsp; diverse nature of open =
working=20
groups the results of any vote will be taken solely to assist with =
progress=20
within the group. A<BR>majority vote of a working group should be =
described as a=20
majority vote of a working group.&nbsp; No claim to DNSO&nbsp; =
stakeholder=20
consensus should be attributed to such a vote.<BR><BR>11. Real time=20
work<BR><BR>Working&nbsp; Group members&nbsp; or subsets of&nbsp; the=20
group&nbsp; may meet in&nbsp; real-time (in person&nbsp; or via&nbsp; =
a&nbsp;=20
form of&nbsp; electronic conferencing).&nbsp; Decisions&nbsp; reached=20
or&nbsp;drafts developed&nbsp; during real-time meetings must&nbsp; be =
reviewed=20
on the mailing list or other forum.<BR><BR>12. Proposal=20
development<BR><BR>Groups drafting&nbsp; position statements&nbsp; =
should=20
publish them to&nbsp; the WG. Groups submitting&nbsp; interim&nbsp;=20
position&nbsp; statements should&nbsp; be&nbsp; free&nbsp; to =
revise&nbsp;=20
those<BR>statements&nbsp; after&nbsp; reading&nbsp; the reports&nbsp; =
or&nbsp;=20
others.&nbsp; Working Groups&nbsp; should publish&nbsp; the&nbsp; =
position&nbsp;=20
statements for&nbsp; a&nbsp; period&nbsp; of comment,&nbsp;=20
specifically<BR>seeking&nbsp; comments not&nbsp; only on the&nbsp; =
substance=20
of&nbsp; the positions but&nbsp; also on impact and cost issues.&nbsp; =
These=20
positions papers should not be the end result<BR>of the Working Group?s =
efforts,=20
but should serve as tools for finding common ground&nbsp; and =
addressing&nbsp;=20
concerns of&nbsp; specific groups. Working&nbsp; Group members<BR>should =
strive=20
to make compromises when appropriate.<BR><BR>13. Disputes and role of an =
interim=20
report<BR><BR>Many&nbsp; conflicts can&nbsp; be&nbsp; resolved by&nbsp; =
simple=20
votes.&nbsp; The majority&nbsp; view goes forward&nbsp; and is&nbsp;=20
documented&nbsp; in an&nbsp; interim&nbsp; report. However,&nbsp; where =
in&nbsp;=20
the<BR>opinion&nbsp; of the&nbsp; WG Chair,&nbsp; there is&nbsp; a =
significant=20
minority&nbsp; proposal, this proposal&nbsp; should also&nbsp; be=20
documented&nbsp; in the&nbsp; interim report of&nbsp; the Working=20
Group.<BR><BR>The interim report should contain:<BR><BR>(a)&nbsp; an=20
abstract&nbsp; of&nbsp; all proposals&nbsp; which&nbsp; achieved a&nbsp; =

meaningful level&nbsp; of support,<BR><BR>(b) a clear statement of what =
is being=20
proposed and its underlying rationale<BR><BR>(c) an&nbsp; analysis of =
who=20
and&nbsp; what systems might be&nbsp; impacted by the =
proposal<BR><BR>(d)&nbsp;=20
the specific&nbsp; steps that would&nbsp; be necessary&nbsp; to take =
to&nbsp;=20
implement the proposal<BR><BR>(e) the&nbsp; costs and risks, if any, of=20
implementing&nbsp; the proposal and how they would be borne<BR><BR>(f) a =

statement of which stakeholders have been consulted about the proposal =
and what=20
support the proposal has in the various stakeholder=20
communities.<BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>14. Draft final=20
report<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times =
New Roman"=20
size=3D3>The&nbsp; goal of&nbsp; the Working Group&nbsp; process =
is&nbsp; to=20
produce a&nbsp; Report containing recommendations for submission to the=20
NC.<BR>The Report should contain the following sections:<BR><BR>a) =
Executive=20
summary of not more than 1000 words.<BR><BR>b) Terms of =
reference<BR><BR>c)=20
Conclusion&nbsp; - a clear and concise statement&nbsp; of the proposal =
discussed=20
in the Working Group and the conclusion reached.<BR><BR>d) Impact&nbsp; =
analysis=20
- -&nbsp; a full analysis&nbsp; of who might&nbsp; be impacted, including =
other=20
supporting organisations, and in what ways, by such a policy.<BR><BR>e)=20
Constituency impact reviews - a summary and analysis of evidence =
provided by=20
DNSO constituencies.<BR><BR>f) Record of outreach&nbsp; - a record of =
outreach=20
to any segment of the Internet community that might be affected by the =
proposed=20
policy.<BR><BR>g)&nbsp; Minority&nbsp; reports -&nbsp; a&nbsp; fair=20
statement&nbsp; of&nbsp; points in&nbsp; opposition and&nbsp; a =
substantive=20
analysis of their merits and the intensity of the opposition.<BR><BR>h)=20
Supporting&nbsp; arguments - a summary&nbsp; of the best arguments&nbsp; =
for=20
adoption of the policy.<BR><BR>i) Risk/Cost&nbsp; analysis - an analysis =
of the=20
risks&nbsp; and costs of the proposed policy.<BR><BR>15. Publication and =
comment=20
period<BR><BR>The&nbsp; interim&nbsp; report should&nbsp; be&nbsp;=20
published&nbsp; to the&nbsp; General Assembly,&nbsp; Names Council and=20
Constituency secretariats&nbsp; for debate, comment and criticism and =
the=20
resulting&nbsp; feedback incorporated into a&nbsp; Final Report. The =
Working=20
Group shall&nbsp; provide&nbsp; such&nbsp; comment&nbsp;&nbsp; =
period&nbsp;=20
as&nbsp; is&nbsp; reasonable&nbsp; considering&nbsp; the =
</FONT></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman" =
size=3D3>complexity, importance,=20
and urgency of the policy under consideration.<BR><BR>16. Final=20
report<BR><BR>The final&nbsp; report shall&nbsp; be submitted by&nbsp; =
the WG=20
Chair to&nbsp; the Names Council within&nbsp;&nbsp; the&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
time&nbsp;&nbsp; frame&nbsp;&nbsp; specified&nbsp;&nbsp; in&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
the&nbsp;&nbsp; terms&nbsp;&nbsp; of&nbsp;&nbsp; reference.<BR><BR>17.=20
Termination<BR><BR>Working Groups&nbsp; will be disbanded =
automatically&nbsp; on=20
completion of their task or&nbsp; disbanded&nbsp; by&nbsp; =
the&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
Names&nbsp; Council&nbsp; earlier&nbsp; if&nbsp; deadlock&nbsp; is&nbsp; =

evident.<BR><BR>18. Revising the terms of reference<BR><BR>The terms of=20
reference may be re-visited by the Names Council on the request of the =
WG Chair=20
or the Supervisory Chair.<BR><BR>Appendix B<BR><BR>Criteria for =
establishing new=20
DNSO constituencies<BR>1. Need<BR><BR>1.1 What need would the proposed =
new=20
constituency fill?<BR><BR>1.2 What&nbsp; would the proposed new =
constituency=20
bring to&nbsp; the DNSO that is now<BR>lacking?<BR><BR>2. Common=20
interest<BR><BR>2.1&nbsp; What commonality&nbsp; of&nbsp; interest =
would&nbsp;=20
the members&nbsp; of the&nbsp; proposed new<BR>constituency =
share?<BR><BR>3.=20
Distinction<BR><BR>3.1&nbsp; How&nbsp; much overlap&nbsp; in&nbsp; =
membership=20
is&nbsp; there&nbsp; likely to&nbsp; be between&nbsp; the<BR>proposed =
new=20
constituency and&nbsp; existing constituencies, the General =
Assembly<BR>and=20
other parts of ICANN?<BR><BR>4. Representation<BR><BR>4.1 How =
representative=20
of&nbsp; the stated common interest would the proposed =
new<BR>constituency=20
be?<BR><BR>4.2 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new =
constituency=20
taken to<BR>establish a hierarchy of representativeness and openness =
within the=20
proposed<BR>new constituency?<BR><BR>5. Alternatives<BR><BR>5.1&nbsp; =
Are&nbsp;=20
there alternative&nbsp; means&nbsp; of&nbsp; fulfilling the&nbsp; stated =

need&nbsp; besides<BR>recognition of a new constituency?<BR><BR>5.2 Are =
there=20
other&nbsp; places within the ICANN structure where this need =
could<BR>be=20
fulfilled?<BR><BR>6. Organisation on a global scale<BR><BR>6.1 =
What&nbsp; steps=20
have the&nbsp; proponents of the proposed&nbsp; new constituency =
taken<BR>to=20
organise the proposed new constituency?<BR><BR>6.2 Have&nbsp; the=20
proponents&nbsp; of the proposed new&nbsp; constituency demonstrated=20
the<BR>capability&nbsp; to&nbsp; command the&nbsp; financial&nbsp; =
and&nbsp;=20
human resources&nbsp; required by&nbsp; a<BR>constituency?<BR><BR>7. =
Support=20
within the DNSO<BR><BR>7.1 What steps have the proponents of the =
proposed new=20
constituency taken to<BR>seek support from existing =
constituencies?<BR><BR>8.=20
Impact assessment<BR><BR>8.1 What&nbsp; would be the impact&nbsp; of the =

proposed new&nbsp; constituency on =
existing<BR>constituencies?<BR><BR>8.2&nbsp;=20
What&nbsp; would be&nbsp; the&nbsp; impact of&nbsp; the&nbsp; proposed =
new&nbsp;=20
constituency on&nbsp; the<BR>finances and administration of the=20
DNSO?<BR><BR>8.3&nbsp; What would&nbsp; be the impact&nbsp; of the&nbsp; =

proposed new constituency&nbsp; on policy<BR>formation within the=20
DNSO?<BR>-------------------------------------------------<BR>Information=
=20
from:&nbsp; =A9 DNSO Names Council</FONT><BR><BR>DNSO=20
Secretariat</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C151B0.542E50E0--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #783
************************