ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] Registry Operators et al

  • To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:20:36 -0700
  • Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.0.28

Some personal thoughts not vetted with the RrC: I think the bar for new
constituencies should be set fairly high. One of the main puposes of the
restructuring is to focus the actual policy work within the WG model,
and less at the Council level.

Do backend registry service providers (not contracted with ICANN) really
need to be represented through membership in any new or existing
constituency? Or are their likely interests already well represented
through the RyC and/or RrC?

Do City/Geo gTLD operators truly represent interests unique enough to be
considered a consitituency? Or can there primary interests already be
well represented through membership in the existing RyC? They may well
represent a special interest group within the RyC, but it seems
unnecessary to form an entirely new constituency.

Do users whose special interest is security or safety truly represent a
new constituency? Is there any valid reason why those users' interests
cannot be dealt with in one of the existing User constituencies
depending on whether they are commercial or non-commercial?

It seems dangerous and unnecessary to me to start splintering off
special interest groups into their own constituencies. And remember,
anyone can participate in the PDP WGs, and under the new structure that
should be a bigger concern than having your own special interest
represented on the Council.

Regarding gTLD applicants, or entities intending to become accredited as
registrars, etc. Is there any reason they cannot be allowed as observers
into the appropriate constituency until such time as they qualify to be

I think that where we are seemingly headed right now with regards to new
constituencies is too complicated and ultimately unworkable. Th
threshold needs to be extremely high. In fact, I think it would be
difficult to identify an interest group that is cannot fit into an
existing consituency AND is large enough to warrant its own.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Registry Operators et al
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 3:10 am
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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
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
such conflict and dilution that it brings the very credibility of ICANN

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
leaving their main ICANN involvement as bilateral negotiators (and as
participants in GNSO working groups)

I suggest none of these solutions has universal appeal.


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