RE: [council] Registry Operators

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> the GNSO must have a home somewhere for 
> resellers and registry service providers.

If by home you mean membership in a SG or
constituency, Why? That's the thinking 
that is going to get us bogged down into 
all kinds of unworkable complications.

I personally do not believe that it is
necessary, or wise to believe, that every
entity is going to fit neatly into a SG
or constituency. The more important test
should be wheher or not they can 
meaningfully participate.

Since one of the main purposes of the BGC
was to move the policy making role more
into a WG model and away from the Council
being legislators, then participation in
the WGs is actually the most meaningful
way to participate, and that is open to
all.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 9:43 am
To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


To be clear, I only mentioned registrants to demonstrate that the 
concept of signing contracts which can change suddenly is not unheard 
of. I was not proposing that they become members (in any form) of the 
contracted parties house.

I was suggesting that resellers might fit there, as the conditions 
under which they operate COULD and DO change based on new consensus
policies.

However, my main point was that (in my mind) the GNSO must have a 
home somewhere for resellers and registry service providers. Having 
all SG and houses lock them out does not seem like a credible model to
me.

Alan

At 15/07/2009 10:25 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Alan,
>
>There is at least one flaw in your analogy. Registrants and resellers
>have a choice in the registrars they will work with and each of those
>registrars have their own registration/reseller agreements. Registries
>and registrars have no choice: they all must agree to abide by consensus
>policies.
>
>Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:41 PM
> > To: Council GNSO
> > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
> >
> >
> > Chuck, that argument made sense when ICANN was started and
> > the world was a lot simpler, but I am not sure it is as strong today.
> >
> > Today, registrars and registries effectively (even though not
> > always using the term) sub-contract parts of their
> > ICANN-mandated responsibilities to other parties. Therefore
> > those other parties are indirectly but effectively bound by
> > consensus policy as well. Using this argument, registry
> > service providers and registrar resellers could well be
> > defined as "contracted parties".
> >
> > The argument regarding being bound by changeable terms may
> > well be true in the general case, but in relation to ICANN
> > matters, pretty much every domain registrant agrees to terms
> > that can unilaterally be changed without notice by registrars.
> >
> > But regardless of the specific arguments, we seem to have a
> > group of parties who are or will be significant players in
> > the domain game, and both GNSO houses say that they cannot
> > belong. That is not a credible and sustainable model.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 14/07/2009 11:01 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> > >It gets very frustrating to go through this same issue over and over
> > >again. There is a very clear reason why the RyC and the RrC are
> > >restricted to those who have registry or registrar agreements with
> > >ICANN: In those agreements, registries and registrars commit
> > in advance
> > >to implementing consensus policies that are within the picket fence
> > >without having any knowledge of the details of those
> > polices. That is
> > >a very exceptional situation in the world of business
> > contracting as I
> > >have to believe attorneys know full well. As a result of
> > that 'blind'
> > >commitment, registries and registrars can be seriously impacted by
> > >policy development actions of the GNSO.
> > >
> > >I can accept the fact that some may not have any empathy for the
> > >contracted parties and may not like this but let's at least not
> > >continue to retread ground that we have covered many times before.
> > >
> > >Chuck
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > Rosette, Kristina
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:47 PM
> > > > To: Council GNSO
> > > > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I the only who is troubled by the fact that restricting
> > > > membership in the registrar and registry constituency to entities
> > > > that are ICANN contracted parties effectively gives ICANN control
> > > > over which entities are and are not members and the
> > timing by which
> > > > entities become eligible for membership?
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:25 PM
> > > > To: Council GNSO
> > > > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello All,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed, it is an old, important issue that is still
> > unresolved and
> > > > > must be resolved before the GNSO restructure can take place.
> > > >
> > > > It is certainly worth considering further.
> > > >
> > > > Membership of the registry and registrar constituency has
> > generally
> > > > been very clear - based on the legal entity being a
> > contracted party
> > > > with ICANN as either a TLD manager or a gTLD registrar. This
> > > > information is publicly available on the ICANN website.
> > > >
> > > > There are other parties involved in the process of the
> > domain name
> > > > value chain.
> > > >
> > > > E.g
> > > >
> > > > (1) Consultants - there are many consultants and lawyers that
> > > > provide services to the members of the registry and registrar
> > > > constituency or members of other constituencies - these
> > consultants
> > > > and lawyers can be split across the business constituency
> > and the IP
> > > > constituency.
> > > >
> > > > (2) Internet Service Providers - while some purely provide
> > > > connectivity
> > > > - many of these companies have moved into value added
> > services - and
> > > > many are significant suppliers of domain names (either as
> > accredited
> > > > registrars, or as resellers of accredited registrars).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Other domain name resellers - e.g portals (e.g
> > Yahoo), software
> > > > companies (e.g Microsoft), search engines (e.g Google),
> > web hosting
> > > > companies - there are wide range of domain name
> > resellers. Some of
> > > > thee are very large companies and supply large volumes (e.g over
> > > > 100,000
> > > > names) of domain names to their customers. At different
> > > > times staff or
> > > > consultants/external lawyers of these companies have been
> > members of
> > > > registrar, business constituency or IP constituency.
> > > >
> > > > (4) Domainers - these companies operate a portfolio of
> > domain names
> > > > - they often do not supply domain name registration services to
> > > > other parties - but may sell some of their domain name
> > licences from
> > > > time-to-time. They may be accredited registrars
> > (usually to get the
> > > > lowest possible wholesale price for domains), or may simply be
> > > > resellers. Where they are not registrars - it is not clear what
> > > > constituency that should be members of. They would probably
> > > > consider themselves to be members of the business
> > constituency - as
> > > > they are "business users" of domain names (earn revenue from
> > > > advertising, or from the future sale of the domain name licence),
> > > > and not involved in supplying domain name registration
> > services to
> > > > third parties.
> > > >
> > > > For consultants or lawyers it is often complex as they
> > may have some
> > > > customers/clients that are associated with the domain name supply
> > > > industry and some customers/clients that are not.
> > > >
> > > > In many cases large companies have different departments (or legal
> > > > subsidiaries) - e.g a legal department, network connectivity
> > > > department, domains/hosting department - and it can be
> > convenient
> > > > to have staff members of different
> > departments/subsidiaries to join
> > > > different constituencies (e.g Registrar, ISP constituency, IP
> > > > constituency).
> > > >
> > > > So do you make the decision on the basis of the corporate entity
> > > > (could be operating across multiple area of interest in
> > the GNSO),
> > > > or on the basis of the individual (may work for a particular
> > > > department of a corporate, or may work for many clients).
> > > >
> > > > Ultimately this will probably be hard to resolve.
> > Perhaps the best
> > > > to hope for is that members of constituencies clearly define their
> > > > potential conflicts of interest. This could be at a
> > corporate level
> > > > and at an individual level (e.g identify clients involved
> > in different
> > > > constituencies if a consultant). It would also be
> > useful to require
> > > > this to happen at the beginning of establishing working
> > groups (not
> > > > as a method of exclusion - but to clearly state potential
> > > > conflicts).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The reality is that many members of the GNSO community
> > can potentially
> > > > participate in multiple roles. Trying to create very
> > tight exclusion
> > > > rules (e.g you can be a member of constituency x -
> > provided you have
> > > > no other relationship with any member of another
> > > > constituency) may unnecessarily restrict participation.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bruce Tonkin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >