Re: [council] Registry Operators et al

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim, these are good points.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Terry L Davis,P.E." 
<tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al


> An *interest group* does not necessarily make a constituency,
> at least in my opinion.
>
> gTLD registries contracted to ICANN is a consituency, City/Geo
> gTLD registries is an interest group that is a subset of the
> gTLD registries constituency and does not constitute a *new*
> constituency.
>
> Non-commercial users is a constituency. Non-commercial users
> who have a special interest in security and safety is an
> interest group that is a subset of that constituency and does
> not *need* a new constituency to express those interests.
>
> I don't have a problem with new constituencies but if the
> Board is not cautious about what it allows we will have a
> complicated mix of constituencies representing narrow
> special interests and none of us will ever get anything
> done efficiently.
>
> This not about making it *difficult* to add constituencies.
> It is about doing it right.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, July 16, 2009 9:20 am
> To: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz"
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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
> of stakeholders.
>
> 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.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----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
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > 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
> > Terry
> >
> >
> > > -----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
> > 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 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
> > >
> > >