DNSO? The gTLDs don't think so.
Date: Thursday April 18 2002, @11:42AM
Topic: ICANN Staff and Structure

tlr writes "The following summary of some key points of today's Names Council telephone conference was produced by Alexander Svensson and myself. An MP3 recording of the telephone conference is available here. We'd recommend you listen, in particular, to 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 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.

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.)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
DNSO? The gTLDs don't think so. | Log in/Create an Account | Top | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.




This article comes from ICANNWatch
http://www.icannwatch.org/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/18/154230