Re: Our draft

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 06:09:11AM -0400, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote:
> I recall that we agreed - and had consensus - on fair hearing panels.

>From the latest draft:

  D.  APPLICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP IN CONSTITUENCIES 1-5

  After formation of the Names Council, applications for membership
  in the constituencies 1-5 shall be submitted to the Names Council. 
  The Names Council shall have the right to approve or disapprove
  each application.  If an application is not approved, the applicant
  shall have the right to appeal to the Fair Hearing Panel (described
  below). 

and

  III.  OPEN AND TRANSPARENT NON-DISCRIMINATORY PROCESSES

  The processes of the Names Council (and the processes of each
  constituency) shall be governed by the same provisions for open and
  transparent non-discriminatory processes as those of the Board of
  the Corporation.  A general mechanism for review of conflicts and
  grievances will be developed, and the Names Council shall appoint a
  Fair Hearing Panel which will, among other responsibilities
  delegated to it by the Names Council, hear appeals pursuant to
  Section I.D.  of this application. 

  Other such conflicts and grievances heard by this Fair Hearing
  Panel might include those regarding dominance or control of any
  single issue by means of membership in more than one constituency,
  other methods of unfair domination by special interests, matters
  concerning disputed membership in a constituency or the DNSO,
  disputes concerning membership dues, either in the DNSO or in a
  constituency, and so on.

I see on reading this over that the language is not as clear as it
could be, but the point is that FHPs *are* in the current draft. 

kent

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain