<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] A Farce in a Pretty Package
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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|