Re: [ga] court supervision, follow on article
Actually the full text is: 4.3.4. A specification or policy established by the ICANN Board of Directors on a temporary basis, without a prior recommendation by the council of an ICANN Supporting Organization, shall also be considered to be a Consensus Policy if adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board reasonably determines that immediate temporary establishment of a specification or policy on the subject is necessary to maintain the operational stability of Registry Services, the DNS, or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is as narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve those objectives. In establishing any specification or policy under this provision, the ICANN Board of Directors shall state the period of time for which the specification or policy is temporarily adopted and shall immediately refer the matter to the appropriate Supporting Organization for its evaluation and review with a detailed explanation of its reasons for establishing the temporary specification or policy and why the Board believes the policy should receive the consensus support of Internet stakeholders. If the period of time for which the specification or policy is adopted exceeds ninety days, the Board shall reaffirm its temporary establishment every ninety days for a total period not to exceed one year, in order to maintain such specification or policy in effect until such time as it meets the standard set forth in Subsection 4.3.1. If the standard set forth in Subsection 4.3.1 is not met within the temporary period set by the Board, or the council of the Supporting Organization to which it has been referred votes to reject the temporary specification or policy, it will no longer be a "Consensus Policy." and as it's in relation with this one, it should also be quoted: 4.3.1. "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (a) action of the ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (b) a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated, that the specification or policy should be established, and (c) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy. BUT, considering that a court order could be the foundation for a Consensus Policy, is, mildly said, strange (and don't forget the 2/3 majority, right?). However, as in previous cases, you are talking about potential situation. That is, you accept that there might be such a situation. I think we should all act more responsibly, and not discuss potential situation, or speculate what might happen. So far the explanation by John Jeffrey (and supported mi Michael Froomkin) makes more sense than the speculations. veni At 01:29 PM 11.10.2006 '?.' -0700, Danny Younger wrote: Re: There are many reasons to believe that it may be incorrect... Sincerely, Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com
|