DNSO Review Report Version 3.0**
(For Public Comment)
I. Background and Overview of DNSO Review Process1
Requested at the ICANN Board meeting in Yokohama, Japan, July 2000,2 the objectives of the DNSO Review are:
To facilitate the DNSO review, the Names Council established a Task Force,3 consisting of one representative from each Constituency and the Chair of the General Assembly. The Task Force's responsibility was to oversee the review, receive comments and prepare the draft reports. The first job of the Task Force was to prepare a questionnaire4 to begin the review process. The purpose of the questionnaire was to identify questions and solicit discussion on issues pertaining to the DNSO, including its responsibilities of the organization, and structure. In addition to the Task Force, the DNSO Review Working Group5 was established with the mandate to assist with outreach during the extended time period of the review process.
The Task Force finalized the DNSO Review Questionnaire following the 21 September 20006 Names Council call. The Questionnaire was sent to all Task Force representatives on 29 September 2000,7 with the request that each Task Force representative coordinate input from their respective constituency, and the General Assembly, by 9 October 2000. The review process was delayed due to other issues requiring attention within the DNSO.8 The new time-line for completion of the review was discussed at the Marina del Rey Names Council Meeting, and finalized shortly thereafter, for 10 January 2001. This time-line was extended again to 15 January in order to accommodate the schedule of the DNSO Review Working Group.9
Comments received both during the initial review and during the DNSO Public Review posting (28 January - 11 February) are annexed to this report. Comments received included those from: constituencies, the Internet Service Provider Constituency, the gTLD Registry Constituency, the NCC AdCom, members of the Registrar Constituency, the Intellectual Property Constituency, the General Assembly and the Non-Commercial Constituency;10 the DNSO Review Working Group;11 and several individuals involved in the DNSO process. Additionally, several articles addressing the DNSO process provided additional input.12
The draft DNSO Review Report prepared by the Task Force was discussed at the January 24th Names Council conference call. Names Council comments were incorporated into this draft,13 which was posted for DNSO public comment (28 January - 11 February 2001). Comments received during the DNSO public comment are incorporated into version 3.0 of the DNSO Review Report.14
The DNSO15 was formally established in March 1999 as one of ICANN's three Supporting Organizations.16 The DNSO is responsible for advising the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the domain name system.17 Additionally, the Board can refer proposals for substantive policies regarding the domain name system to the DNSO for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board.18
Since its establishment it has undergone tremendous growth in both membership of stakeholders and geographic representation.
Since its formation, the DNSO has made three recommendations for policies to the ICANN Board involving dispute resolution,19 new top-level domains, and famous trademarks,20 and chosen four directors to the ICANN Board through two sets of elections.21
The structure of the DNSO defines responsibilities for the respective components of the DNSO, namely the Names Council, Constituencies, General Assembly, Working Groups, and the relationships among them. The constituency-based structure was the result of extensive discussions during the establishment of the DNSO.22 While the DNSO has fulfilled many of its responsibilities, review of its structure and instilling some procedures will help the DNSO better address issues brought to its attention by the Names Council, and improve responsiveness where input is sought.23
The Names Council recommendations to date sought to incorporate Working Group outcomes, which themselves accommodated strong and divergent interests.24 The strongly divergent views, disincentives to participate in various procedures, made achieving DNSO recommendations to the ICANN Board very challenging. During the DNSO review commentators observed that while the DNSO had a difficult task with some recommendations due to the contentiousness of the issues, it performed fairly well under the circumstances, and was able to achieve recommendations that have been clearly referenced in ICANN Board decisions.25 However, despite the achievements, there is clearly room for improvement in the DNSO process to provide recommendations.26
In sum, the DNSO can perform and fulfill its responsibilities better, including methods of establishing consensus within the DNSO.27The purpose of this report is to identify some specific areas where these improvements could occur.
The seven constituencies within the DNSO represent a wide range of stakeholders. The constituency memberships are divers and their structures differ.28 Each constituency has three seats on the Names Council.29
Involvement in constituencies, and between constituencies, is challenged by the voluntary nature of participation and the fact that all balance participation with other commitments. DNSO Review discussions on constituencies covered many areas,30including suggestions to do away with the constituency structure entirely,31or adding one more constituency.32 In the discussions, two concerns were reflected as general issues impacting the different views.33 First, representation and procedures within a constituency; second, overlap of constituencies and whether all stakeholders are represented with the current constituencies.
As noted above, the structures of constituencies differ with some constituencies having very hierarchical structures and others less so. Comments reflected that there is considerable overlap between some constituencies.34 Structural changes included ensuring greater commonality in constituency structures and procedures, including common standards and practices within constituencies on determining the 'position of a constituency' as opposed to statements made by some members of a constituency, on behalf of the constituency, without members given opportunity for input.35
The overall question of the correct division of constituencies,36 and ensuring that stakeholders are sufficiently represented raises the question on what alternatives would exist and if they would be any better.37
The role of constituencies and representation, and overlap, was also reflected in discussions on establishing an 'Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency'.38 The discussion of constituencies, and role within the DNSO is also a discussion raised by some ccTLDs, and their statement at the Marina del Rey ICANN Board Meeting expressing an interest in establishing a separate ccTLD Supporting Organization.39
Since the establishment of the DNSO, there has existed an interest by some to establish an individual domain name holders constituency, though there has not been agreement how such a constituency would exist. Comments received during the DNSO review process,40 indicate that while there is not consensus on the need for an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency, there has been sufficient discussion to support suggest the next step is to explore its establishment.41
Next steps in exploring whether to create an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency must include addressing different views within individual domain name holder interest groups, to resolve contentious areas, identify a representative charter that does not overlap with the General Assembly, Non-Commercial Constituency, and the At Large.42
The General Assembly of the DNSO is an open forum for participation in the work of the DNSO. The participants are individuals with an interest in participating in the DNSO, and issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary responsibility. Participants may also contribute expertise to the work of the DNSO, including work items and participation in working groups.
While the GA has extensive membership appears to be handicapped by having little or no participation or authority. How to address the current structural problems to enhance the GA within the DNSO has received much discussion,43 and should be further addressed.44
Working Groups, established by the Names Council, are one mechanism for discussing issues within the DNSO, and soliciting input for recommendations. Working Groups, however, under the current system of an open model have proven to be less effective than they could be.45 DNSO Working Groups are valuable for identifying perspectives, educating on the issues, and even identifying areas where perspectives appear to merge. But the make-up of DNSO Working Groups has catered towards those who have the time and inclination to show up at any given moment, and are not necessarily in a position to reflect a consensus of the Internet community. Therefore DNSO Working Groups have fulfilled a balancing role, providing open forums for sharing of information, educating on views, while recognizing that debate, and even votes,46 should be viewed as valuable intellectual inputs into the consensus development process; but they can not be presumed to be the consensus-development process itself.47
Given the past experience with DNSO Working Groups, there is a need for more strongly enforced Working Group mandates, stronger procedures,48 and mechanisms for ensuring Working Group chairs focus on a Working Group's mandate.49 Procedures are needed, such as something along the lines of an IETF type consensus-building model.50 Additionally, such procedures and mechanisms would help establish mechanisms of participation that ensure full participation by representatives in working groups. The draft report from Working Group D addresses many of these issues, and subsequent to its completion and adoption should provide guidance to some of the DNSO working group challenges to date.
The Names Council is responsible for the management of the consensus-building process of the DNSO. The NC consists of representatives selected by each of seven Constituencies. The NC functions via a list serve, regular teleconference calls, and physical meetings in conjunction with ICANN quarterly meetings.
Part of the DNSO review was to determine whether the Names Council is fulfilling its responsibility to steer and manage the DNSO consensus process. It is fair to say that comments received during the review process supported the view that there is much room for improvement in the Names Council and its ability to lead and oversee the DNSO and consensus-building process. Comments observed that the NC's time appears to be dominated by administrative practices, and matters that are more related to its own process than to substantive matters seem to dominate the NC's time. In part, this could be due to the lack of structure and rules for policy formation, in addition to the fact that it is a volunteer body and there is no person (i.e. Secretariat) to help the NC administer the DNSO and keep the timetables on track. Additionally, due to the voluntary nature of the NC, NC representatives often lack personal involvement and commitment to the work of the NC.51
Structurally and procedurally, the NC must develop approaches that allow for greater involvement of NC representatives, minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount of measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process. Mechanisms to encourage greater participation by all members in the Names Council deliberations, with clear mandates, procedures, and time lines would contribute.52 In addition to improving NC procedures, the NC must also lead more strongly, including enforcing working group mandates, ensuring constituency participation, and overall ensuring the DNSO fulfills its role and responsibilities within the ICANN structure. The NC's role in leading the DNSO would also be improved by better understanding the needs and issues at hand in other parts of the ICANN structure by establishing better communications with the ICANN Board Members and other SO Councils.
Staffing of the DNSO is important for the overall carrying out of DNSO, Constituency, General Assembly, and Names Council activities. The DNSO has operated almost entirely on volunteer efforts and a line of credit/donation extended to it from AFNIC. As with any organization, a secretariat to oversee administrative issues is central to ensuring the effective functioning of the Names Council and the DNSO.53 A secure revenue stream or other mechanisms to ensure the DNSO to acquire the needed staff must be determined.
ICANN, its Supporting Organizations, and its Advisory Committees, have international participation that require methods of addressing issues in a multi-cultural, culturally and linguistically sensitive manner. Additionally, efforts have been, and should continue to be made to accommodate all participants, regardless of a participant's time zone and/or ability to technologically or economically participate in the ICANN process.
The DNSO should seek to continue efforts to ensure global participation. Some recommendations to help achieve this objective have been under discussion during the review process.54
The DNSO requires participation by interested stakeholders in the forums of interest. To ensure participation, methods must exist so that participants from whichever interest group are not overburdened and discouraged from participating.55 This can include limiting the number of face-to-face meetings.56
In addition to friendly forums, participants should also be able to review materials, have access to translations where possible, and have access to the medium to communicate. In this context, the review process may have identified ways to better the DNSO procedures, enhance Working Group functionality and thereby participation, improve communication among and within Constituencies, and amongst stakeholders.57 Additionally, the outcome of Working Group E (Global Awareness and Outreach) might identify additional factors.58
DNSO Public Comments: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/.
GTLD Registry Comments: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00083.html.
IPC Member Comments http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00107.html.
ISP Comments: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00486.html.
General Assembly Member Comments: DNSO Review Working Group Report, including annexes (some annexes are comments listed separately below): http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00086.html; http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00087.html.
Non-Commercial AdCom Comments: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00662.html.
Other Non-Commercial Comments: Kent Crispin Comments on the DNSO Review: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01428.html; http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01487.html; http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/0014.html.
MHSC Summary Opinion: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00088.html.
European Brands Association (AIM): http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00063.html.
Jonathan Weinberg's Comments on the DNSO Review: http://www.law.wayne.edu/weinberg/dnso_review.htm.
Harald Alverstrand Personal Comments: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc05/msg00836.html.
Press Announcement of Working Group: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00611.html.
Articles of interest to the review process:
Johnathan Weinberg, ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy, http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+187.
*Task Force Members are: Axel Aus der Muhlen, Peter de Blanc, Roger Cochetti, Roberto Gaetano, Hirofumi Hotta, Paul Kane, Youn Jung Park, Theresa Swinehart. The Task Force would like to thank all for their contributions and input into the DNSO Review Process. The Task Force would also like to thank both YJ Park, and Greg Burton, for their work as co-Chairs of the DNSO Review Working Group.
1 DNSO Review process' timetable http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html; adjustment in schedule http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/wgreview-history.html. DNSO public comments received on process: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00008.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00009.html. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00005.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00015.html.
3 The NC-Review task force archives can be found at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/maillist.html.
4 The questionnaire raises questions on the DNSO responsibilities, achievements, and its structure, to provide input into the review process. See NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00053.html. It was circulated on 29 September 2000 and 4 December 2000 to Constituency and GA representatives. Review Task Force archived at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/mail2.html.
5 Press Release announcing Working Group Chaired by YJ Park charged with 'with actively seeking input from the widest possible set of Internet stakeholders.' http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21dec00.htm. Schedule for submission of comments revised to accommodate Working Group. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/mail2.html. Full archive of the Working Group discussion is found at http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.htm.
7 Comments and discussion on the GA list, e.g., http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc05/thrd14.html#00836.
8 Marina del Rey Names General Assembly and Names Council meeting, November 2000. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive.
9 http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02059.html; reminders of the due date were sent on January 6, 2001 to all Constituency representatives, Chair and Co-Chair of the GA, and the Chair of the DNSO Review Working Group, and are archived at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/mail2.html.
11 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00086.html; http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00087.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00003.html.
12 Annex II; and e.g., http://www.icannwatch.org/archives/how2fixicann.htm; http://www.icannwatch.org/archives/essays/967072831.shtml; http://www.icannwatch.org/archives/consensusmodel.htm; Jonathan Weinberg, ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy, http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+187.
14 For a full listing of comments received, see http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/. Task Force member comments requiring clarification during ICANN public comment, http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00140.html; http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00138.html.
17 ICANN is responsible for coordinating the assignment of the following identifiers that must be globally unique for the Internet to function: Internet domain names, IP address numbers, and protocol parameter and port numbers. In addition, ICANN coordinates the stable operation of the Internet's root server system. As one of its SO's, under ICANN Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section I, the DNSO shall a) [ ]advise the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System. b) [ ]consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting of representatives of constituencies as described in Section 3 of this Article VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those Constituencies and (ii) a General Assembly ("GA"), consisting of all interested individuals and entities.
18 Subject to the provision of Article III, Section 3, of the ICANN bylaws, the Board shall accept the recommendations of the DNSO if it finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, and is in the best interest of, ICANN; (2) is consistent with ICANN's articles of incorporation and bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and open processes (including participation by representatives of other Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably opposed by the ASO or PSO. Under Article VI, Section 2(g) "nothing in this Section 2 is intended to limit the powers of the Board or the Corporation to act on matters not within the scope of primary responsibility of a Supporting Organization or take actions that the Board finds are necessary or appropriate to further the purposes of the Corporation."
19 Universal Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP): Working Group A, Names Council's review of Working Group A report, followed by the Names Council recommendation based on the Working Group A's report to the Board and the final adoption by the ICANN Board.
22 History of the DNSO at www.dnso.org.
24 Crispin's comments to the questionnaire, with support from the NCC, noted that Working Groups A, B, and C, 'tackled some of the most difficult problems that the DNSO will ever have to face, they were tackled as the very first assignment for the new organization, and there was determined opposition to any progress. Given these difficulties, the DNSO has not done too badly. But there is no question that much better outcomes could be easily imagined, and there is also no doubt that the DNSO should learn from this experience.
26 Comments by the ISP Constituency to the DNSO Review Committee, 10 October 2000 (attached); gTLD Registry Constituency to the DNSO Review Committee, 15 January 2001, archived at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/mail2.html.
27 See AIPLA's comments at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html. Some insight into the current efforts, see report on the consensus and process questions http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01831.html was adopted with 15 yes, 2 no, 4 don't know. The WG adopted the text including the disclaimer about participation levels. While the report attempts to get objective data, it also shows the difficulty of getting widespread objective data.
28 For full information on each constituency, please see links to each constituency accessible from www.dnso.org.
30 See Annex II, in particular DNSO Review Working Group report sections 2.3, 2.4, and annexes 2, 3, 4, on constituencies and whether interests are adequately represented in existing constituency groups. See also ISP and IPC Constituency comments. See also, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00007.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00018.html.
31 See DNSO Review Working Group report, section 2.2 ("Some including one of the At-Large Board Director, Karl Auerbach recommend to eliminate 'Constituency' structure itself, which has not been working out in the DNSO [Appendix 4]"); DNSO public comments http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00019.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00007.html.
33 See, e.g., http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00022.html, section III.
35 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/maillist.html; http://ncdnhc.peacenet.or.kr/0034.html; http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02060.html; http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02070.html. Each constituency has their own process to reach a 'constituency statement'. In cases where there is not a 'constituency statement', there is clarification that comments are by members of a constituency. See, e.g., DNSO Review comments by members of the IPC.
36 DNSO Review Working Group Report, 15 January 2001, Section 2.2, 2.3. Despite extensive debate, the Working Group could not could not reach any decisions on the issue of constituencies and the DNSO. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02062.html; Also see DNSO comment http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00019.html; (http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00139.html; www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01832).
37 DNSO Review Working Group report, and annexes 2 (Weinberg) and 3 (Crispin). See also AIPLA DNSO public comments http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
38 Comments received indicated strong support for the existence of an Individual Domain Name Holders/Owners Constituency. Individual domain name holders and Internet users, are not represented on the Names Council, nor the Non-Commercial Constituency. But see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00126.html for discussion on accuracy of the statement.
40 Text adopted by the WG on the individuals' constituency question http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html, adopted by a vote of 17 yes, 1 no, 3 don't know.
41 DNSO Review Working Group Report, 15 January 2001, Section 2.4, and annexes 5 and 7; However, some suggest to first address current constituency structures before initiating process for a new one. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
43 On Constituencies and the General Assembly http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01832.html, adopted by a vote of 13 yes, 1 no, 5 don't know.
44 Few comments during the review addressed the General Assembly. See also http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00022.html, section III.D; the GA should not be the forum for individual domain name holders, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
45 See Crispin's comments on Working Groups (DNSO Review Working Group report, annex 20 and 21). Working Groups are additionally challenged by misuse of list-serves, as well as strong interests represented by various participants.
47 The gTLD Registry Constituency comments of 15 January 2001. Expertise withdrawing from participation is not unusual due to the enormous list-serve traffic and inappropriate list behavior, thereby leaving only zealots with their own agendas who often have minimal knowledge of the issue, or the entire impact of the debate. Also, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02061.html; http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02064.html.
48 IPC, AIPLA, Comments 10 October 2000. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/mail2.html. A independent observation, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02100.html. There is a need for structure and methodology for managing working groups. Without a definitive, understandable, methodology, it is very difficult to ascertain that the finished product really represents legitimate, broad-based, consensus opinions. See also, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
49 Problems have existed with Working Group chairs not keeping the working group focused on its mandate, or actively advocating that a working group ignore the purpose approved by the NC. This inconsistency causes problems to the consensus building process. An example of this was evident in the DNSO Review Working group, which was mandated to specifically ensure outreach in the DNSO review process. See wg-review archives, and specifically notes by NC members to remind chair of deadline and need to adhere to scope of working group mandate. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/maillist.html. Looking at posts from 1/1 thru 1/6 indicated that there were approx 1275 posts from 58 parties but 79 % (approx 1020 posts) came from just 18 people. Review of comments show many off-point discussions. However, see also DNSO public comments by current DNSO Working Group Chair, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00027.html.
50 For IETF procedures, see www.ietf.org; individual suggestion raised in working group. http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01952.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00022.html, section III.E. See also DNSO public comments by current DNSO Review working group chair, http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00027.html.
52 See DNSO review public comments http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
53 Funding and financing of a secretariat, as well as participation in the DNSO for purposes of maintaining list-serves, conference calls, and other matters, requires further attention. See also comments of DNSO Review Working Group and gTLD Registry Constituency. See also, DNSO public comments http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00020.html; http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
54 DNSO Review Working Group and DNSO Names Council archives and discussion on translation of materials into multiple languages. See also DNSO public comment http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html.
58 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000621.NCwge-report.html. (check on status?)
reports are included in the appendices from YJ, including the
polling data, as appendices 23 and 24 (CHECK). See also http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00012.html;
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to email@example.com.
(c) 2001 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers All rights reserved.