At 2/13/99, 02:08 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 01:01:15PM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
>> There has been much discussion about the need to give the DNSO Names
>> Council some executive powers to deal with "emergency" or "pressing" DNS
>> issues that may arise from time to time.
>
>"Emergency" is not a good term for it. The actual meaning is "within
>a specified time". Here is a concrete, very realistic example: ICANN
>has put forth registrar accreditation guidelines that include year to
>year contracts. 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.
>
>In fact, timely action could be the norm, rather than the exception,
>when you think about it -- the Internet changes quickly.
>
>Consequently, I think that the ability to put time constraints, and
>the ability to forward non-consensus recommendations to ICANN,
>should be a fundamental facility of the decision proces.
Hi Kent,
So, you would support the policy facilitation
process as defined in the Paris draft if . . .
1) there were time limits on the combined research
committee/fair hearing panel appeal process, and
2) if no consensus was reached within that time
frame, it could be forwarded to ICANN as such?
Jay.
