Bret:
There is only one thing the DNSO will do that is of any significance. That is
to elect three members of the ICANN board. ICANN, particularly in its current
composition, has no need and no incentive to ask the DNSO for "advice and
recommendations...on an expedited or emergency basis." ICANN is going to be
run like ISOC (in fact, its current board and its policy agenda represent a
factional victory for ISOC). When was the last time ISOC asked its members or
chapters for anything but money?
--MM
Bret A. 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. The thought is, as I understand
> it, that the DNSO may be called upon to provide advice and recommendation
> to the ICANN Board on an expedited or emergency basis. In such instances,
> some believe that the Names Council should have the authority to deviate
> from its normal decision-making process to arrive at a quick solution
> (and a solution that may not necessarily have input from the broader
> community). The fact that "the Paris draft" does not provide such
> executive powers to the Names Council has been pointed to, by some, as a
> major deficiency.
>
> I'm not opposed to this "emergency power," in theory, but I'm also not
> convinced that this is a real problem. To the extent that the DNSO is
> supposed to recommend *policy*, it is not obvious to me what an emergency
> "policy" looks like and why it would be required.
>
> Can someone help me understand what is contemplated by the
> executive/emergency powers of the Names Council. What kind of problems
> are expected to arise that will require such action? Has there been a
> history of such problems arising?
>
> To the extent that ICANN Board members can provide advice, is this
> something that you find valuable in a DNSO? What kind of policy decisions
> would you anticipate sending to the DNSO in this manner?
>
> -- Bret
