My original post asked about whether there was really a need for giving
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.
First, 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.
Second, 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.
-- 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.
