[council] [fwd] Notes from today's NC call. (from: email@example.com)
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
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
From: Thomas Roessler <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:44:47 +0200
Subject: Notes from today's NC call.
Please listen to today's MP3 recording. It's interesting. In
particular, we'd recommend the last 30 minutes of the call.
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 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.
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
(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.)
Kind regards, Thomas & Alexander
----- End forwarded message -----