The following are my comments on the proposed DNSO Application Draft, dated 12/16/98.

Specifically, these comments deal with the section pertaining to the "Fair Hearing Panel" governance. The specific focus is
on the selection process, (quoted from the draft and provided below) which is followed by my commentary.

"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."

Commentary:

The Fair Hearing Panel is a crucial check and balance function for the DNSO process and ICANN structure. As such,
there is an ethical requirement (at least) to have this Panel act as an impartial but knowledgeable group, with no bias or
partiality to ICANN or the Names Council.

Since the Names Council will be responsible for the selection of Panel members, it suggests, on the surface, asking the fox
to watch the chickens. What doesn't ring true here is that the issues to be reviewed/resolved could be influenced by the
Names Council members in discussion with the Panel members.

While the Panel members need to be current and knowledgeable with respect to the potential issues, there should be some
means to maintain an independent stance, where the Panel is selected by a mechanism that is divorced from ICANN or its
offices.

My suggestion to achieve that independence is to have the concurrence of the general membership, subject to the
membership vote as to the selection of the panel members.

Regards,

 
Bob Hering
Member, ISOC
Member Number 1325020
rh1@msn.com