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.
> > 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
