I think this is a fine idea, and in addition please add some other
things that have been proposed.
Like, make sure that Fair Hearing Panels can be initiated by petition
to the Names Council (or maybe also to the General Assembly) after due
consideration given to the petition.
This need not require that a Fair Hearing Panel petition must be
granted, but that it must be heard and considered with due process.
I do not recall what is the status of Fair Hearing Panels in the Paris
Draft, so I might be way off base in this message. Please let me know
if I am so.
I do recall that in the AIP/ORSC draft, FHP had been converted
(reduced) into a tool for stopping or interrupting a Research
Committee Reporting Process and that a call for a Fair Hearing Panel
would force a panel to be formed and that action on the involved
report would be stopped until the FHP was competed. This would be far
too draconian for my tastes.
The original, and remaining, concept of Fair Hearing Panels is to
assure a Fair Hearing to people who greatly fear not being hearable.
My suggestion here above addresses this aspect, and does not gum up
the works in doing so.
Please respond to this message with information about the status of
this FHP proposal. I have sent various messages about it to various
places, and I do not have a clue as to whether it has been giving a
hearing or not;-)...
I also have often proposed that some Specific Fair Hearing Panels be
established in the DNSO Application to ICANN to avoid wasting time
getting them started. The two I have mentioned are:
1. Regional Fair Hearing Panel to reduce the pressure for extreme
efforts to balance regional voting power on the Names Council.
it is going to be impossible on any Council smaller than the UN
General Assembly to properly assure all regions (large and small)
of being heard.
2. DNS History Fair Hearing Panel (might better be a Research
Committee as it requires serious research of the history) to
develop policies to deal with the past and move toward the
future. It is very disturbing to think that the ICANN BoD may
have already decided the future of the DNS without doing any such
research, and without any ICANN membership or DNS fair hearings.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:09:08 -0500:
}
}As all the major sponsors of the proposal appear to support it, and hearing
}that the amendments will answer many of the issues raised here, as of this
}weekend, I'll be officially editing the draft to include the amendments
}proposed in the joint letter by AIP and NSI which accompanied the Paris
}draft application and which is available on the web site at
}dnso.association.org.
}
}Sincerely,
}Andrew
}--
}Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP
}Executive Director, Association of Internet Professionals (AIP)
}Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}Phone: 310-724-6589
}More Info: http://www.association.org/
