Bret A. Fausett wrote:
My original post asked about whether there was really a need for givingCertainly "Timely Decisions" is needed. It should be understood that
executive power to the Names Council, even if just to act in an
"emergency" capacity. Kent's re-threaded response ("Timely decision") not
only answered a different question (i.e. the need for timely action on
*all* decisions), but also resurrected my worst fears about the
dnso.org's conception of what the Names Council should be.
in providing for "Timely Decisions", it is not necessary or even wise to
remove any provision for proper review, only to shorten the time involved
for such a review to take place. This could best be accomplished by
having that review to be done via a Mailing list for that area under discussion
or consideration and limit the time for comments/debate/discussion on that
specific area, and than set a date for the membership to vote up or down.
As I stated above there is no need to address any policy consideration orFirst, let me say that I agree with much of what Kent said in his first
response (the first post in the thread "Timely decisions") about the need
for moving the research committee process forward in an orderly fashion.
Many of the critics of the "Research Committee" section of the Paris
proposal have based their criticism on the fear that the hearings and
reviews will be abused and the perception that the number of public
hearings and public comments periods will unduly delay the policy
recommendation process. I disagree with this reading of the Paris
proposal, but I share the underlying belief that the process should move
forward in an orderly manner. I much prefer to try what's been proposed
and amend the bylaws later, if it turns out that the worst fears about
frivolous petitions and abuse are realized. But I am sensitive to the
operational concern, and if there is a way of addressing it without
removing the public comments periods, open hearings, and petition
processes, let's see if we can do it.
potential problem area by removing the public comment periods and still
meet a very timely decision and vote by the membership. Just a need to
to shorten that comment period, open hearing and petition process.
The Names Council should NEVER under any circumstances need or haveSecond, the examples that Kent used don't strike me as areas in which the
Names Council would have to use its "emergency" or "executive" powers.
(Kent's examples are quoted below.) There's no reason why policy
recommendations on the points below couldn't go through the regular
process (about 3 to 6 months, I estimate), rather than be acted upon by
the Names Council in executive fashion. In fact, these examples
illustrate quite clearly the concern that many have with the dnso.org-BMW
draft: it gives too much power to the Names Council to act in the way
Kent suggests. There's no question that recommendations on the examples
that Kent gave need to be made in an orderly fashion, but these are not
"emergency" issues on which the Names Council should be given authority
to act without consultation of the DNSO membership.
the ability to act without the vote of the general membership.
Regards,-- Bret
Kent's examples:
>Sometime before the beginning of next term, ICANN
>could *very well* want policy input from the DNSO as to how those
>guidelines should be changed.
>
>Here's another very concrete, time-bounded example: NSI's contract
>with the USG runs out in about two years. Some reasonable time
>before that ICANN may *very well* want policy determinations on a
>number of issues.---
You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
