Re: [ga] Notes from today's NC call.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Considering the source (Roger Chochetti) is anyone really surprised
at this?  I for one am not.  I don't believe I have seen anything
official from the gTLD registries constituency that supports Mr.
Chochetti's contention or desire either...  If so I would like
to see it cited someplace.  Roger, can you provide such
a reference other than your assertion?  Please advise.

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html