Hello Kent --
I may live to regret responding to you on this, but...
>From Kent's message Mon, 8 Feb 1999 01:47:33 -0800:
}
}On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 07:43:57PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
}
}> > Furthermore, it is explicitly the case that the Names Council only
}> > gives recommendations to ICANN.
}>
}> That is all the DNSO CAN do Kent, so this is no distinction.
}
}Of course. However, Jay, Einar, and others have continuously spread
}the misinformation that the dnso.org proposal was somehow going to
}"make policy" -- as opposed to "recommend policy". I just wanted to
}make it explicit for their benefit.
}
I do not recall ever saying (even once) anything that resembles your
claim that I continuously spread misinformation that the DNSO.ORG was
somehow going to }"make policy" -- as opposed to "recommend policy".
Frankly, I refrained from making any specific statemetns abvout the
details of any aspect of the DNSO.ORG tests or what you call the BMW
Draft. In fact, I have not read the BMW draft because I became
convinced that arguing with any of the editors was a waste fo time.
But, I still advocate that our continuing PARIS draft editing team
carefully look through the DNSO.ORG and BMW drafts for good stuff to
copy into the new versions of the Paris draft.
If you BMW folk do the same, maybe we can find a way to meet in the
middle;-)...
BYW, please stop trying to pejoratively rename our PARIS draft, and we
will accept your rename of your BMW draft. There is really no point
in deliberately using uncommon names to refer to common objects!
Are you trying to confuse or to elucidate? Cheers...\Stef
}
}> > 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.
}>
}> I like the idea of dissenting opinions being submitted, and I suggest it be
}> included in the next iteration of the Paris draft.
}>
}> > This is utterly different than the Registries Draft, where the
}> > registries can block policies from even being considered.
}>
}>Have you even read it? It does NOTHING of the kind here Kent, I find this to
}>be particularly disingenuous of you Kent.
}
}Yes, I have read it. Apparently you have not. In section 5.9 it
}says, among other things:
}
}"any member of the Registry constituency...may ask...that such
}proposed policy recommendation undergo an implementation preview from
}the registries..." [describes in very convoluted language that a 3/4
}majority of registries must support the policy, then:] "Policies that
}do not meet this criteria SHALL NOT BE FORWARDED TO ICANN BY THE DNSO
}OR ADOPTED BY ICANN" [emphasis added].
}
}"...shall not be forwarded to ICANN by the DNSO or adopted by ICANN"
}is what I meant when I said "blocked": immediately after a policy is
}proposed in the First Request for Comments, 1/4 of the registries can
}block it from any further consideration. Period. The policy can
}have the unanimous support of every other member of the DNSO,
}including 3/4 of the registries minus 1, and that 1/4 of the
}registries can block the policy from even being considered.
}
}That's what the draft says.
}
}It gives the registries an absolute veto over all the policies of the
}DNSO that might affect registries. But of course there are *very
}few* policies that the DNSO might devise that wouldn't affect the
}registries in some way or another...
}
}There is no way to reasonably qualify this veto, because it is the
}REGISTRIES who get to decide whether the qualification applies -- it
}only takes ONE member of the registry constituency to force this
}review. [There is a really cute bit of legalese there: it's actually
}"...any member of the Registry constituency which may be required to
}implement a proposed policy pursuant to a contract with ICANN..." --
}that is, any registry for which there is any mechanism of policy
}enforcement may request this policy review... of course, factually
}unenforcable policies are not a concern...]
}
}> > 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.
}>
}> So what would you change in the review policy? You once asked me if I could
}> only detract and not contribute. I now ask the same of you.
}
}Take it out. That's the only thing you can do with it. It is
}completely untenable on its face. The fundamental premise is flawed.
}
}--
}Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
}[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
