RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Brett,

Where is the "independent review?"  How are the other five review steps
independent?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 12:44 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
> 
> 
> Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> > I think what Chuck is commenting on is the removal of the 
> language stating
> > that issues involving purely contractual matters should not 
> be subject to
> > the PDP.
> 
> Fair enough. From my read though, several important checks 
> remain against
> the possibility of a PDP that relates to purely contractual matters.
> 
>   -- Checks against the initiation of a purely contractual PDP --
> 
>   (1) as you note, there's an opinion from the ICANN General 
> Counsel before
> the PDP process even begins;
> 
>   (2) only a two-thirds vote of the GNSO Council can begin 
> the PDP over the
> GC's evaluation that a matter is purely contractual. (I 
> actually view the
> super-majority as another check against wasteful PDPs);
> 
>   -- Checks against the implementation of a purely contractual PDP --
> 
>   (3) there's another Council vote at the end of the PDP before the
> recommendation is passed to the Board;
> 
>   (4) the Board votes on whether to adopt the GNSO's 
> recommendation (and
> presumably the GC's report would carry significant weight in 
> the Board's
> decision);
> 
>   (5) Reconsideration;
> 
>   (6) Independent Review.
> 
> So I see six independent checks against something that 
> relates purely to
> issues of ICANN's contracts with registries and registrars 
> from becoming
> "policy." 
> 
> The real place of disagreement though is which group should 
> bear the burden
> of appeal to the Board, Reconsideration and then Independent 
> Review. The
> current draft places that burden on the registries and registrars; the
> alternative proposed would place that on parties not in 
> privity of contract
> with ICANN. Reasonable people can certainly differ about how 
> to strike that
> balance, but I personally prefer what has been proposed in 
> the advisory
> group draft (on the assumption that commercial registries and 
> registrars are
> better able to bear the burden of reviews and appeals).
> 
> At the end of the day though, I suspect we're debating a pure 
> hypothetical.
> 
>      -- Bret
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html