On 08-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > What would you suggest? I'd like to hear it, and perhaps the
> > participants here
> > can contribute and we can come up with something that is workable.
> >
>
> AIP and NSI came pretty close two days ago:
>
> * It is proposed that Section 5.9 be amended to read:
>
> In addition to filing a Fair Hearing Petition, any member of the
> Registry, Registrar or ISP constituency which may be required to
> implement a proposed policy pursuant to a contract with ICANN may ask,
> after the First Request for Comments is issued, that such proposed policy
> recommendation undergo an implementation preview from the registries. The
> Names Council shall establish an implementation preview process that will
> determine whether a substantial plurality of those registries which vote
> to support such implementation or are or will be contractually committed
> or able to do so. Policies that do not meet this criteria may be
> forwarded to ICANN by the DNSO, but only if the Names Council
> specifically informs the ICANN Board that the policy has not passed the
> implementation preview, along with the details of the results. Those
> participating in the implementation preview shall collaborate to submit a
> timely report on their actions and views, including a record of the vote
> of each member of the constituency, to the Names Council, and if
> necessary, this Report will be forwarded to the ICANN Board with any
> proposal which has not passed the implementation preview.
OK, I like this also, can we hear from anyone as to any problems with this
language, and/or where this language conflicts with the current draft?
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07-Feb-99
Time: 16:53:39
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
