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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, this is not a wrinkle. This suggestion is a complete rehash of what
was agreed to, and what was approved by the Board. Are all the
stakeholders in the user house in agreement? We need to know if we are
back to square one before we put any more effort into implementation.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the
two houses approach
From: Greg Ruth <greg_ruth@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, December 08, 2008 9:49 am
To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, Council GNSO
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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