On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 10:59:00AM -0500, Bret Fausett wrote:
> 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.
Your fears, however, are hallucinations.
> 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.
Oh good!
[...]
> 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)
Bret, your estimates are fantasy.
The only body for which we have extensive experience on consensus
based proceedings is the IETF. The typical IETF WG takes on the
order of a year. For important or major or very complex protocols it
takes literally years.
Bear in mind that the IETF is composed of a relatively homogeneous
set of individuals (internet engineers) dealing with relatively
restricted problem domains, and coming from a well-established
culture of consensus decision making.
> 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.
It is so frustrating when people simply make up facts to suit their
case...
The clauses you refer to REQUIRE THE NC TO CONSULT WITH THE
MEMBERSHIP AND THE CONSTITUENCIES, unless there TRULY is no time.
"It will only undertake greater authority or issue final policy
recommendations when needed due to urgent questions of Internet
stability, time deadlines for recommendations established by the
Corporation (and then with as much consultation as time permits)
or after proper consultation and comment/redrafting with the
constituencies."
Note that this only happens when the ICANN board makes a request to
the DNSO for timely action, with the time constraints therefore set
by ICANN. Note further that the ICANN board can act without
consulting the DNSO at all, in an emergency. Note finally that
these are still only policy RECOMMENDATIONS, and that the ICANN
board, in such an emergency situation, may decide on a different
course of action.
--
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
