RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
- To: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:20:48 -0400
- Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <009701ca061b$9b911260$d2b33720$@net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <009701ca061b$9b911260$d2b33720$@net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcoFV/tOgbCjAGf5TYaS6jIQxkQRCQAw0ZHAAABP0rA=
- Thread-topic: [council] Registry Operators et al
I fully understand the complications of adding new constituencies to SGs
but making the barrier high does not sound like a way to encourage
openness for new interest groups to participate. Moreover, I think that
approach would be contrary to the Board approved recommendations. In
fact, I believe those recommendations establish a goal of making it
easier to establish new constituencies.
I don't think it is wise for us to work against the Board
recommendations without further consultation with the SIC. I don't mean
to suggest that all the recommendations are perfect and should not be
challenged but I think we should deal with any instances where some
think that might be he case in an appropriate manner. At the Board's
direction, Staff has encouraged the formation of new constituencies and
several organizations have expressed interest. I think it sends mixed
signals to those groups if the Council is sending messages that are
opposite to what the Board and Staff are sending.
Rather than trying to make it difficult for new constituencies to be
added, I think a more appropriate focus would be to explore ways in
which new stakeholders with common interests can be effectively
integrated into the SGs. I believe that we already solved the biggest
problem with regard to new constituencies by disconnecting
constituencies from the election of Council seats. Assuming that issue
is solved, we should focus on how to provide clear and open ways for new
players to get involved in SGs in a way that fairly includes them not
just in WGs but also in SG influence of Council responsibilities of
managing the policy development process.
I personally think that we have to be careful of the perception that we
are trying to entrench the influence of incumbents in the GNSO. The
risk of capture was one that was identified when the original
constituency model was developed and it will always be something that
should be avoided. I am not making any judgment about whether it is a
problem now or not, but I think we can all agree that we want to avoid
any SG being captured by a subset of interests in a particular category
Tim is correct that the main focus should be at the WG level and we have
opened that up already even before the WG model is more fully developed.
But I don't think we should leave the impression with new groups that
want to organize into constituencies (or interest groups) that it will
be difficult for them to meaningfully be a part of the policy management
responsibilities that will happen at the Council level via SGs.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry L Davis, P.E.
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:45 AM
> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council '
> Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'
> Subject: 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.
> Take care
> > -----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 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
> > 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
> > It seems dangerous and unnecessary to me to start splintering off
> > special interest groups into their own constituencies. And
> > 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
> > 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 members?
> > 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.
> > Tim
> > -------- 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 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