ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Registry Operators et al

  • To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:11:10 -0400
  • Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <65F9D4C9180F4AA8B1DCA9B11B93FA02@PSEVO>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <08D4BD54F2DA4E958846EFB95F4E5C30@PSEVO> <200907141534.n6EFYBJw004109@pechora5.lax.icann.org> <B7ACC01E42881F4981F66BA96FC14957035B165B@WIC001MITEBCLV1.messaging.mit> <65F9D4C9180F4AA8B1DCA9B11B93FA02@PSEVO>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcoEVamrQDRzJvsvTnSkZoe681bdNQAMi52wAACs2aAAA1ZesAATnDfwAA7oWsAACkst4A==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Registry Operators et al

I believe you are correct Philip than none of the solutions you listed
has universal appeal.  We already explored a), making one house a supply
side; the key problem from my perspective with that is that it mixes
those who have blind contractual obligations to follow consensus
policies with those who have no such obligation, thereby giving those
without such obligations significant influence over those who do.
Abandoning new constituencies is contrary to the Board approved
recommendations of expanding participation unless a means of
accomplishing that objective can be developed differently than through
constituencies.  Abandoning the bicameral approach would mean starting
all over, an option that would set us back several years.  The only
option that seems to me to have any potential is developing a way to
encourage participation of new groups without requiring them to be in
constituencies; maybe this is worth further focus.

The problems being encountered really only become significant when
voting is required.  Assuming that we are successful at moving
effectively to an improved working group model for policy development
that minimizes the need for voting (and I am one who is optimistic about
that) and assuming that the Council becomes a manager of that process
rather than a policy development body itself, then Council votes should
become much less important.  One area where they are important is with
regard to GNSO Board seats; that is why we designed a specific solution
for that.  Other Council votes should primarily be related to confirming
that the new PDP is adequately followed, that WG's follow the new
guidelines being developed, etc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:11 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'
> Subject: [council] Registry Operators et al
> As I pointed out months ago on this list, there is a 
> fundamental disconnect in two significant GNSO changes:
> a) the bicameral model
> b) new constituencies.
> The bicameral model compromise thrashed out last summer was 
> an agreement between the existing constituencies who all 
> neatly fit into the two Houses.
> The subsequent belief that new constituencies are needed has 
> exposed the impossibility of the bicameral compromise: they 
> do not fit.
> Trying to fit supply-related constituencies to the 
> user-related House introduces such conflict and dilution that 
> it brings the very credibility of ICANN into question.
> There are solutions:
> a) change the Houses to be Supply-side and User-side
> b) abandon new Constituencies
> c) abandon the bicameral approach and remove contract parties 
> from the GNSO leaving their main ICANN involvement as 
> bilateral negotiators (and as participants in GNSO working groups)
> I suggest none of these solutions has universal appeal.
> Philip

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>