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

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

With Patrick's permission, here are a couple more ideas for possible
Contracted Party House constituencies.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: Patrick Jones [mailto:patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:23 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Robert Hoggarth
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two
houses approach


Another possible constituency could be a constituency of data escrow
providers. This is not a large group, but they do have a contract with
ICANN (through either the three-way or four-way agreements with the
respective registries.

I could see a constituency for Registry Continuity (or Registry
Operations) providers, if we ever went ahead with a certification
program for registry operations as separate from TLD operators.

Just two ideas.

Patrick


-- 
Patrick L. Jones
Registry Liaison Manager &
Support to ICANN Nominating Committee
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: +1 310 301 3861
Fax: +1 310 823 8649
patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx   



On 12/8/08 8:00 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



        Philip,
        
        A possible new RySG constituency was already proposed in Cairo:
City gTLDs.  That would not be a splinter group because there are any
not city gTLDs that are members of the RyC.  It is true though that they
would be a subset of gTLD registries who have contracts with ICANN, so
if that is what you mean by splinter group, I suppose you would still
categorize them that way.
        
        It is also possible, although I admit that I am not aware of any
current indication of such, that ICANN could in the future contract with
other parties who provide some sort of registration services.  If that
ever happened, the contracted party SGs should be able to accommodate
them.
        
        In the case of the RySG, I can tell you that we are in the early
stages of developing the RySG charter and in that regard are discussing
a design that would accommodate new registry constituencies if they are
formed.
        
        Chuck
        
        

                
                 
                
________________________________

                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip  Sheppard
                Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:32 AM
                To:  'Council GNSO'
                Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a
wrinkle in the two houses approach
                
                 
                 
                Chuck, thanks for  your first thoughts on this.
                
                My concern about  "GNSO flexibility" as you put it  is
that the flexibility at present is  100% in the users house!
                
                There is zero  flexibility in the contract parties
house.
                
                 
                 
                In other words its  contract parties (a fixed two
constituency group)  and the rest of the  world in the users house.
                
                 
                 
                This fits poorly  to the "birds of a feather" concept
and the idea of new  constituencies.
                
                The relationships  between users and the three types i
mentioned are a direct parallel to the  contract parties.
                
                 
                 
                Can you provide an  example of a new constituency for
the contract parties house  (that is  not a splinter group) ?
                
                 
                 
                Philip