Re: [ga] Notes from today's NC call.
Just fyi, here are the two parts which Thomas and I were
referring to transcribed. I hope I caught everything right.
Next point is recommendation 11 [this refers to the draft v5
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
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html