On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:44:57PM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
>
> 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.
However, the Barcelona/Monterrey/Washington (BMW?!?!) draft is
substantially better: minority opinions may *always* be submitted to
ICANN, regardless of the vote of the Names Council. No
implementation preview is required, no 3/4s vote, and any
constituency can file such an opinion. It is balanced and fair,
giving no special preference to registries or anyone else.
Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
gives recommendations to ICANN.
The basic model of the B/M/W draft is that the NC makes policy
recommendations to ICANN. Every such policy recommendation can have
dissenting opinions attached -- if the registries think that they
won't implement the policy, they can say so in a dissenting opinion.
But if they are in a substantial minority, the majority *can* develop
a policy to be recommended to ICANN, even over the objections of the
registries.
This is utterly different than the Registries Draft, where the
registries can block policies from even being considered.
There have been several attempts to "limit" the Registries Veto, by
restricting it only to policies that, for example, affect the
business decisions of registries, or their contractural
relationships. But the fact is that almost any conceivable policy
can have an effect on a registries business.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
