RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
I very much share your concerns with the creation of new constituencies and the
associated disruptions necessary to accommodate them. As you said, the
threshold needs to be extremely high.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:21 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin
> Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
> 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
> 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)
> 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
> 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
> registrars, etc. Is there any reason they cannot be allowed as
> 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
> 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
> the existing constituencies who all neatly fit into the two Houses.
> The subsequent belief that new constituencies are needed has exposed
> 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.