[council] [fwd] Notes from today's NC call. (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

FYI.  We (Alexander & me) have taken the liberty to summarize what  
we believe to be the most important part of today's call.  If you  
feel that something you have said is misrepresented in the message  
below, we'll obviously be happy to forward your remarks to the GA  
list.
-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/




----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: ga@dnso.org
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:44:47 +0200
Subject: Notes from today's NC call.
Mail-Followup-To: ga@dnso.org

Please listen to today's MP3 recording.  It's interesting.  In  
particular, we'd recommend the last 30 minutes of the call.

<tlr>
To begin with, the council got stuck with agenda item 2 on the  
original agenda, Approval of Draft Conclusions to date.  There were  
suggestions from the Business Constituency which had been circulated 
in advance, and there were numerous suggestions by Roger Cochetti on 
behalf of the gTLD registries constituency made during the call.  
Some of these suggestions consisted in entirely removing  
recommendations which had evolved during earlier calls.  (Mr  
Cochetti joined the call only after a substantive portion of the BC  
edits had been discussed, and after another member of the council  
had called him, BTW.)

To make a long story short, the single most important comment made 
by Mr Cochetti was in reference to the following recommendation (as  
amended by the business constituency):

	The DNSO and the other policy advisory bodies should remain  
	essentially intact in function, and their effectiveness and  
	process be improved.

The comment:

	"The gTLD registries constituency doesn't think so."

Mr Cochetti then explained that the gTLD constituency was rather  
thinking along the lines of the Lynn proposal, with small groups of  
likeminded stakeholders discussing policy.

When asked how policy development should then be performed, Mr  
Cochetti was not able to comment on that at this point of time.
</tlr>

<asv>
J. Scott Evans of the Intellectual Property constituency gave some 
insights about the current IPC thinking about future policy 
development. One proposal seems to be to move it to the Board level 
and to create ad hoc and/or standing committees with members picked 
based on expertise, with staff and board liaisons. This model looks 
like a more traditional trade association (and the current Board 
committees already seem to replace DNSO policy-making in the way 
proposed by the IPC). Another approach discussed by the IPC is to 
"export" issues to other organizations: The Board decides to send an 
issue on to e.g. the IAB or other established specialized 
organizations.

(From an Intellectual Property standpoint, this obviously makes 
sense, since ad hoc committee members on IPC-relevant topics might 
require familiarity with IP law as expertise -- or IPC-relevant 
issues could be exported to organizations such as WIPO.)
</asv>

Kind regards, Thomas & Alexander

----- End forwarded message -----