RE: [council] Registry Operators et al

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

The issues of organisations with multiple interest that span ICANN
constituencies is easily solved.
Where is the organisation's primary interest?
There it should be, and no where else as any organisation will tend to exert
influence directly or indirectly, consciously or sub consciously in pursuit of
its main interest.
Influence within a constituency goes far beyond votes. Indeed influence within
the BC is almost entirely about dialogue and persistence.

Can we expect Verisign to pursue a policy in the IPC that runs directly contrary
to its interests as a registry of .com?
I think not.

By all means let organisations exist in trade groups elsewhere but in the ICANN
context they should choose and vote where their primary interest lies.
And if future structural change in the industry means that it is no longer
obvious where that interest exists in a constituency, it would be a flag to
reform the constituency model to fit that future.
Philip

PS I support Tim's contention that recent constituency applications seem to be
splinter groups seeking to leverage their factional interests.
Adding this complexity to our existing byzantine organisation is not healthy.