RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip,
 
Actually, this is not a new train of thought although the specific
stakeholder groups you name may not have been considered directly.  You
will recall that ISPs were discussed as fitting into the supplier and
user sides.  In their first iteration, the BGC WG used the term
suppliers just like you do, but it was realized that that there is a
critical difference between a contracted supplier and a non-contracted
supplier; hence the ultimate distinction between contracted parties and
non-contracted parties (users).
 
As far as the first party you name, 'applicant registries in the new TLD
process', they certainly do have common interests with registries but
until they execute a contract with ICANN, they are still on the user
side. At the same time, they are welcome to participate in the RyC as
active observers.  As just one example, we welcomed dotBerlin to
participate in the RyC as an active observer a long time ago.
 
'Resellers of domain names' and 'sellers of registry services based on
sub-domains' also have some common interests with contracted
registration service providers but they are also users of domain names.
They can easily be categorized as 'commercial' or 'noncommercial' and
even though they may not fit well into existing user constituencies,
they might be excellent candidates for new constituencies in the
applicable stakeholder groups.  
 
In my opinion, the BGC WG recommendations appropriately tried to ensure
that the improved GNSO would be flexible enough to accommodate changing
constituencies within all of the stakeholder groups.  The current
challenge for each of the four SGs is to design our structures to
readily accommodate new constituencies.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
        Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:39 AM
        To: 'Council GNSO'
        Subject: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the
two houses approach
        
        
        For discussion
         
        Some recent activity with new organisations seeking involvement
inside the GNSO has opened up the thought that maybe the delineation of
the two house we have currently proposed is too narrow. It was based on
old thinking.
         
        The two houses are:
        a) users  
        b) ICANN contracted parties
         
         
        On reflection this division into two does NOT reflect the
totality of potential stakeholders.
        A division between:
        a) users
        b) domain name suppliers
        may be a better fit.
         
        The parties with no home in the proposed structure are:
        a) applicant registries in the new TLD process (not yet a
contract with ICANN)
        b) resellers of domain names (with no contract with ICANN)
        c) sellers of registry services based on sub-domains (with no
contract with ICANN)
         
        These three categories have little communality with true user
interests (a safe place to communicate or do business)
        and much more with the contracted parties ( eg want to be a
registry / shared customer base / focus on registry pricing).
         
        Should we not extend the scope of the contracted parties house
to fit these sort of organisations inside if the desire is there ?
         
        Philip