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

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Just fyi, here are the two parts which Thomas and I were
referring to transcribed. I hope I caught everything right.

Best regards,
/// Alexander


Roger Cochetti:

 Next point is recommendation 11 [this refers to the draft v5
 at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00065.html],
 and, I guess the [gTLD registry] constituency's reaction would 
 be just delete the recommendation altogether.
 There are two substantive thoughts captured in the recommendation,
 one is that the DNSO should remain intact, and the second is that
 ICANN at the corporate level should cover the cost of the DNSO.
 On the first, we don't believe that the DNSO should remain intact,
 and secondly, on the issue of who should cover the costs of 
 anything like the DNSO, it's been our position all along that
 those who participate in the DNSO should cover its costs, that
 should not be an ICANN expense.
 [...]
 Probably the concepts that Stuart Lynn put forward in his plan
 come closer to where the constituency seems to be headed than
 the construction that Marilyn just offered [i.e. two policy
 development entities, one for generic TLD, one for ccTLDs]
 which is to say, a producer policy group, a, you know, policy
 groups that are functional.

J. Scott Evans:

 Basically, at this very preliminary stage, I'll let you know
 where the IPC is coming from. We sort of are batting around
 two ideas. The first idea is the DNSO doesn't exist anymore.
 That the work, that the DNSO is basically pushed up to the
 Board level, that the President or CEO, and issues are brought to
 his attention by anyone, that a committee, either ad hoc or standing 
 commitees are then developed, similar to some of the committees 
 that we've had that have been put together on certain issues
 and it would select members from the stakeholder communities
 which are affected by the decision. Then those committees 
 would have a staff liaison; it would also have a board liaison
 that would work with those committees to make sure that 
 a recommendation is being brought to the full board and 
 that those committees will be limited in number of people
 and they will be picked for their particular expertise
 regarding the particular issue. That is one idea.
 [...]
 [On selection of committee members:] That we haven't gotten to 
 yet. Right now, it could be a nominating committee or could be by 
 the Board themselves. We haven't worked through all those issues.
 I'm giving you just a broad understanding. 
 Our second idea is that there be certain advisory bodies or trade 
 organizations that are already out there such as WIPO, ISOC, IETF, 
 IAB that would be out there and that when an issue comes up, it 
 would be decided by the Board who that issue involves of those 
 contracted advisory groups that are separate, third-party, completely 
 separate entities. And then those entities, the issue would be 
 exported from the Board to those entities, to take an example,
 like WIPO did with the UDRP, would do the consensus, do the whole 
 task of developing, going around, it's paying for everything,
 doing everything. And then they would develop a policy, that
 policy, or a policy recommendation would then go to the Board. 
 So, those are the two areas, we have not decided which one is 
 better, those are the two ideas just floating around at our 
 constituency.

--
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