Wednesday November 13 2013 21:39, you wrote to Ward Dossche:
CS>>> Grin, the only job of an IC is ... US>> An IC is not needed (anymore) in the current state of affairs. CS> I think I agree unless the ZCC wanted to have one, I think today it CS> ... CS> Basically we can never have an IC again that works for us all, unless CS> they are all-zone ware.
CS> Thats pretty hard to do.
CS> In today's market, I'd expect an IC to step in ONLY when 2 ZC's had an CS> issue they could not resolve directly. They would have to be trusted CS> to see both sides and be impartial.
the handling of disputes is layed into the *C structure by policy, this works upto the ZC level. But what in a case, a dispute arises between two ZC's ? here is a fallback option -> IC But as like in every dispute, why not first try to get an answer by yourself? Talk together, communicate, and an case there is no answer, request assistance by the next higher level ... ZC's? -> search for someone who is able to mediate :)
the roles that are forseen in P407 for an IC reflects a position that had some meaning back in 1989, the time the policy was written, but is this also todays view ? I think no ... except the wise note, the IC is the "first among equals" Zone Coordinator
Beside disputes, a 2nd job comes into IC's role (by policy) that is to arrange the announcement of (new/ policy update) referenda
do we have disputes running? do we have a policy referenda running? No ? don't worry, no job for an IC currently and by the time an IC is required, the ZC's shall cast a vote for their t/l =;)
