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 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.