To Members of the Board,
The origin
of this document lies in the Working Group Review’s (“WGr”)[1] general acknowledgement
of problems within the current Domain Name Support Organization(“DNSO”), specifically
with respect to the outline in ARTICLE VI-B of the ICANN Bylaws. Estimates
of the degree of impairment of the DNSO among members of WGr vary, but broadly speaking,
a general consensus largely cedes the problematic character and history of the body.
Indeed, the very issuance of the ICANN Board of Directors’ Resolutions 01.28 and
01.29[2] clearly verifies the Board’s (“BoD”) own assessment of the deficient nature
of the DNSO and underscores the need for substantive proposals and recommendations
for remedying any identified shortcomings or flaws in the DNSO. As a result,
this paper will include proposals by members of the WGr with respect to certain perceived
DNSO problem issues. For the present purposes, let it be noted, that the Board
is understood to be requesting two distinct categories of proposals. In the
first instance, there is a request for proposals/recommendations that improve operations
of the DNSO as it is constituted today. This category of proposals appears
to reflect the need for a temporary `quick fix’ for short-term purposes only.
Secondly, the Board is understood as further requesting proposals/recommendations,
which may result in changes in the structure and process of the DNSO and/or involve
major changes in its overall function for the long-term.
Terms of Reference:
In the Green Paper, four principles to guide the evolution of the domain name
system were set out: stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination and representation.
In the White Paper, numerous specific references to individuals are made which clearly
demonstrate the aptness of their participation.
Section 9 of the White paper, Competition
Concerns, states:
"Entities and individuals would need to be able to participate
by expressing a position and its basis, having that position considered, and appealing
if adversely affected".[3]
Currently, individuals constitute an outspoken, functional
group within the GA. However, interested persons have neither a mechanism for
appeal, nor any way to voice their concerns at a decision making level alongside
other special interest groups. There are a number of DNSO operational failures
that must be acknowledged and addressed by both the Board and the Names Council ("NC"),
if representation for individuals is to improve.
DNSO:
The DNSO is responsible
for advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain
Name System. The DNSO currently consists of (i) a Names Council, consisting
of representatives of constituencies as elected by the “Constituencies” described
in Section 3 of ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B ("Constituencies"), and (ii)a General Assembly
("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and entities. It is important
to note that the GA includes, but is not limited to the established “Constituencies”
of the DNSO.
Issue 1) Representation:
With respect to the overall representative
quality of the existing NC in terms of its relation to the current GA, it has been
argued by many WG members that the existing NC Member selection model is not truly
representative of a GA that includes, but is not limited to, the 7 existing constituencies
and all other interested parties subsumed within it. Indeed, subsection B of Section
1 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B explicitly refers to a “a General Assembly ("GA"),
consisting of *all interested individuals and entities*.”
[Emphasis added]
To date, there has been a good deal of discussion in the WGr
regarding the amendment of the current Constituency roll to include an Individual’s
Constituency (“IC”). By and large, the general sentiment within the WG Review
reflects favourably on the establishment of such a Constituency.[4] However,
the application process for the addition of new Constituencies is not clearly defined,
which creates a significant barrier to entry, and defeats the prospects of those
willing to give serious attention to a proposal. This situation is exacerbated
by the fact that any progress is being hampered by disagreements as to what would
constitute an appropriate process to add new Constituencies.
According to subsection
B of Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B, the NC “shall consist of representatives,
selected in accordance with Section 3(c) of this Article, from each Constituency
recognized by the Board pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article.”
Subsection D of Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B clearly states:
"(d)
Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a
new or separate Constituency. Any such petition will be posted for public comment
pursuant to Article III, Section 3. The Board may create new Constituencies in response
to such a petition, or on its own motion, if it determines that such action would
serve the purposes of the Corporation. In the event the Board
is considering acting on its own motion it shall post a detailed explanation of why
such action is necessary or desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment,
and not make a final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until after
reviewing all comments received. Whenever the Board posts a petition or recommendation
for a new Constituency for public comment, it will notify the names council and will
consider any response to that notification prior to taking action.
Further, as
the language of Subsection B of Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B tacitly
indicates the genuine possibility of reviewing the Constituency model by its reference
to 7 “initial” Constituencies, it is reasonable to assume that some revision of the
Constituency organization was considered highly probable. Consequently, there
is no reason to believe that the current Constituency list was meant to remain without
emendation.
It should be noted, that there was a considerable amount of
discussion around proposals for the dissolution of the Constituency structure altogether.
In fact, a large majority in the WGr appeared to favour reorganization along such
lines. Options discussed included the election of the Names Council directly
from the body of the GA itself. Although this idea was indeed popular, a restructuring
of the DNSO based on a dissolution of the current Constituency Structure would take
a good deal of time and discussion, whereas the need to establish a voice for Individuals
within the current DNSO is immediate. However, this discussion should be revisited
at a later point in time, pending a review of a DNSO that included an Individual’s
Constituency (among other potentials).
Recommendation: It is recommended that
the Board immediately begin seeking proposals for the implementation and self-organization
of an Individual’s Constituency(“IC”). Such proposals are not to be sought
from any existing ICANN organization or any other appointed committee/group, including
but not limited to the NC and any present constituency within the GA. Instead,
in keeping with the spirit of a “bottom-up” mandate and process, it is proposed that
the BoD issue notice that proposals for the IC may be submitted for consideration,
and thereby encourage the individual domain name holders to self-organize and submit
a proposal in a manner similar to the existing.
Issue 2) Input:
According
to Subsection C of Section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B, "If the NC undertakes
consideration of a domain name topic, or if a Constituency so requests, the NC shall
designate one or more research or drafting committees, or working groups of the GA,
as appropriate to evaluate the topic, and shall set a time frame for the report of
such committee or working group." This process is not being instigated by the
NC in a timely, nor definitive fashion, the WG-Review itself being one example.
The NC is required to adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry
out its consensus management “responsibility, including the designation of such research
or drafting committees, working groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines
are appropriate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO.”[5] To
date, the NC has failed to designate work to committees or working groups drawn from
the GA to address a number of issues that have arisen repeatedly, including the call
for an Individuals Constituency. Since the primary mission of participants
of the GA is to take part in working groups, research, and drafting committees, this
valuable resource is freely available yet underutilized.
Recommendation: That the
NC be encouraged to foster more inclusive participation for the membership of the
GA. This includes the regular establishment of relevant work, research, and/or
drafting groups that draw upon all interested parties within the GA.
Issue
3) Consensus Management
With respect to the issue of NC management and oversight
of the consensus building process of the current DNSO, it has been generally remarked
within WGr that there is no clearly defined consensus determination mechanism, which
has resulted in repeated confusion, frustration and disappointment for many members
of the WG Review.[6]
Recommendation: Due to the general confusion regarding
what constitutes a “consensus” decision mechanism in the DNSO, the formal adoption
of a 2/3vote definition of the “consensus” standard is recommended. [7] (This
recommendation is based on the existing mechanism for determining community consensus
within the Names Council, as per Subsection D of Section 2, ARTICLE VI-B, ICANN Bylaws).
At the same time, it is recommended that any formal proposals resulting from the
2/3 “consensus” formula also include any separate or dissenting statement(s).
Issue
4) Access:
Inadequate and unfairly restricted access to DNSO mailing list servers
and other communications tools/systems which allow easy and effective participation
in the DNSO for all interested and useful parties and groups.
Recommendation:
Allocation of ICANN/DNSO resources to provide ongoing ML servers and/ or forum capability
for new WGs and committees. A minimum of 6 should be made available immediately.
Issue
5)Oversight:
The DNSO Review process is more
than just the short-term diagnosis of a problem, and should be viewed as much-needed
ongoing DNSO oversight process. This process also involves efforts at proposing solutions,
efforts at implementing solutions, and efforts at reviewing the relative success
of such implementation, including referral by the NC to its Constituencies for comment.
Currently, an effort has been taken by the NC to terminate the life of WG-Review.
This is a catastrophic "operational" failure.
Recommendation: That the WG-Review
(or a newly constituted WG) be designated as a Permanent Review Working Group (PR-WG)
with the mission to: convene and continually evaluate the performance of ICANN's
Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) and, where necessary, to recommend to
the BoD structural or procedural changes to the DNSO that will help ICANN fulfill
its ongoing mission of operating as a global, bottom-up, Internet policy coordination
body. To carry out its mission, the PR-WG will submit a timely report to the BoD
that includes responses or comments from the DNSO Constituencies and other interested
parties.
Issue 6) Staffing/Secretariat:
To date the NC (and the GA generally),
have relied mostly on volunteerism for the production, organization, collation, and
distribution of all pertinent documentation and other information relevant to the
DNSO as a whole. A concern of many of the members of WGr is the resulting inefficiency
with regards to the easy accessibility/availability and distribution of documents/information
pertaining to the various purposes, processes, procedures and programs of the NC,
and the DNSO in general. Also, concern has been expressed over a perceived
lack of responsiveness to general inquiries, and other requests for information and/or
(re)production of relevant material(s) and/or media. Generally speaking, there
was a good deal of support for a dedicated and smooth functioning secretariat for
the DNSO among the WGr membership.[8] Historically, most (if not all) of the general
DNSO’s Secretariat function has been performed by Elisabeth Porteneuve, who is also
a sitting Member of the NC. It should not be incumbent upon any member of the
NC to perform in such a capacity.
Recommendation: For the purposes of effective
ministration of the DNSO as a whole, it is proposed that a general secretariat be
established to serve both the GA and the NC respectively. This secretariat
is not to be confused or related to the internal secretariat structures of the various
bodies or entities (such as Constituencies) that make up the GA as a whole.
Rather, the DNSO secretariat will serve the purposes of organizing and responding
to the information needs and requirements of the DNSO as a whole. For the purposes
of timeliness, quality, and appropriateness of any such efforts, it is recommended
that the secretariat be founded on a professional rather than volunteer basis.
It is recommended that this suggestion be implemented immediately, as it will serve
the interests of both short and long-term remedial programs.
Issue 7) Outreach
and Education
There was a great deal of discussion about the importance
of Outreach and Education of the Public, government officials, and other Users of
the Internet on Domain Name issues, among many members of the WGr. By and large,
most WGr participants were in favour of such a program and many pointed to existing
efforts within the ccTLD Constituency, and the Non Commercial Domain Name Holders
Constituency (“NCDNHC”) as good examples of such efforts, particularly with respect
to Multilingual
inclusiveness. This, despite the fact that there is no specific
proviso for such activities in the ICANN Bylaws ARTICLE VI-B, and the further point
that the words “Outreach” and “Education” do not even occur in any part of the ICANN
Bylaws.
Recommendation: One effective and efficient manner of dealing
with this issue is for the BoD to implement a clause in Section 3 of ARTICLE VI-B,
that mandates the requirement for Outreach and Education efforts and programs within
each Constituency (including multilingual services). However, the specifics
and organization of such efforts should be left to each Constituency, in and of itself.
In this manner, Constituencies will be challenged to find effective means of constantly
introducing new members, as well as keeping existing members well-informed, thereby
enlarging the overall representation of the Internet Community as a Whole (“ICW”)
within the DNSO.
Thank you for your time in consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
WG
Review
Notes:
[1] http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html
[2]
*Resolutions of the BoD:
[Resolution 01.28] The Board asks the Names Council and
other sources to separate their proposals into those that improve operations of the
DNSO as it is constituted today and those which may result in changes in the structure
of the DNSO and/or major changes in its functioning.
[Resolution 01.29] The Board
encourages input related to changes that improve operations of the DNSO as it is
constituted today no later than April 16, 2001. Further Board action on the basis
of that input will be scheduled at the end of that period."
[3] http://www.icann.org/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm.
[4]
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00174.html
[5] Subsection B of Section
2 of ICANN Bylaws Article VI-B.
[6]http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00116.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00124.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00198.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00581.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00645.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html
[*Plus
many more available upon request.]
[7]*Note: This 2/3 formula is proposed as a
proscribed standard for the purposes of research or drafting committees, working
groups and other organized bodies of the DNSO, and should be based on the number
of participants voting within the respective groups. In other words, assuming
that there are 40 members on a given list and only 30 exercise their right to vote,
then 20 would be considered a “consensus”. In the event of someone not agreeing
with the options provided for in a given ballot, an abstention option should also
be mandated for any ballot, which option establishes participation in the voting
process without committing to any of the other alternatives. In this way, a clear
distinction between abstaining and not voting is established.
[8]http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01075.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00716.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00719.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00747.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01098.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg03188.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00293.html
END