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

[Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>]

I tend to agree with Philip.  If the second house is purely restricted to 
parties who have contracts with ICANN, then it will never be appropriate for it 
admit new constituencies.  Surely, this was not the intent of the BGC.

Greg


________________________________

From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 9:38:39 AM
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