Andrew, I wish to point out that several individuals, myself included, have offered advice on v4 and v6 allocation policy issues, and as constitutent regional allocation institutions chose to incorporate an NRO and memorandize their relationship with the Board through the ASO, it is, in theory, and practice, possible for the Board to take, or relay, an interest in the routing and addressing infrastructures. Similarly, were the naming infrastructure to be of incidental interest to one or more members of the ASO, no structural barriers exist to preclude members of the ASO from articulating (a better choice of words than "interfere", in my opinion) that interest. Assuming that "IP" might mean protocol parameters, please accept this small reminder that getting GOST into the suite of mechanisms which might sign a zone was an issue that concerned GNSO, ccNSO, and GAC members. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Probably we may also have advice on IPs.
Is that "Internet protocols" or "intellectual properties"? I hope it's the latter, since if the board starts trying to interfere with the former (regardless of what the GAC says) we're going to have other problems.