Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>
> Einar Stefferud wrote:
>
> >Here I am in strong agreement that the whole concept of Fair Hearing
> >Panels has been subvertted by inavertant editing whcih converts them
> >into a mecahisim to be used to stop progress on any Research Committee
> >proposal that someone does not like.
>
> I don't think that's a fair reading of the sections. A Fair Hearing
> allows an aggrieved party the opportunity to explain a problem, propose a
> better solution, and discuss the issues with the Research Committee.
> Nothing requires the Research Committee to accept the proposal or slow
> down the process. I've seen the reading that you give these sections
> voiced elsewhere on this mailing list a couple of times, and for the life
> of me, I don't see the language that is creating this misunderstanding.
> Can someone please point to the phrase that is creating this concern?
>
> -- Bret
>
> The language follows:
>
> 5.8 Fair Hearing Petition.
>
> If, after the First Request for Comments is published, any person,
> corporation,
> or organization (the "Petitioner") feels that the proposal outlined by the
> Research Committee either (i) places an unfair burden on the Petitioner's
> personal, business, or organizational interests, or (ii) is not in the
> best
> interests of the domain name system, the Petitioner may request a Fair
> Hearing.
> Each Petition for a Fair Hearing shall include (i) a detailed statement
> of the
> harm that would be caused if the proposal contained in the Request for
> Comments
> was adopted as policy; (ii) a specific reference to the language in the
> Request
> for Comments that would lead to the alleged harm; (iii) a specific
> proposal for
> new or modified language that would alleviate or minimize the alleged
> harm; and
> (iv) a statement of the Petitioner's professional or business interests
> that
> would be impacted in any way by the adoption of its proposed language. The
> Research Committee may either adopt the Petitioner's suggested language
> or hold
> a Fair Hearing.
>
> 5.10 Fair Hearing.
>
> A Fair Hearing required by Sections 5.8 or 5.11 shall allow the Research
> Committee and the Petitioner, its representatives and supporters to
> discuss and
> debate the issues raised in the Fair Hearing Petition. Fair Hearings
> shall be
> open to all DNSO members. The purpose of the Fair Hearing shall be to seek
> consensus on the issues raised. After a Fair Hearing has been held, the
> Research Committee shall report on the DNSO web site whether consensus was
> reached, and if so, what was agreed by those present. Fair Hearings shall
> be
> open in the same manner as Names Council meetings.
>
5.11 Further Review of Changes
Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of
the preceding processes, any changes resulting from
such processes shall be republished on the DNSO
website and subject to review under the prior
provisions of this section.
My concern is that this could pave the way for repeated invocations of 5.8
as a filibuster tactic.
