RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach
Philip,
Actually, this is not a new train of thought although the
specific stakeholder groups you name may not have been considered
directly. You will recall that ISPs were discussed as fitting into the
supplier and user sides. In their first iteration, the BGC WG used the
term suppliers just like you do, but it was realized that that there is a
critical difference between a contracted supplier and a non-contracted supplier;
hence the ultimate distinction between contracted parties and non-contracted
parties (users).
As far as the first party you name, 'applicant registries in the new TLD process', they
certainly do have common interests with registries but until they execute a
contract with ICANN, they are still on the user side. At the same time, they are
welcome to participate in the RyC as active observers. As just one
example, we welcomed dotBerlin to participate in the RyC as an active observer a
long time ago.
'Resellers of domain names' and
'sellers of registry services based on sub-domains'
also have some common interests with contracted registration service providers
but they are also users of domain names. They can easily be categorized as
'commercial' or 'noncommercial' and even though they may not fit well into
existing user constituencies, they might be excellent candidates for new
constituencies in the applicable stakeholder groups.
In my opinion, the BGC WG recommendations appropriately
tried to ensure that the improved GNSO would be flexible enough to accommodate
changing constituencies within all of the stakeholder groups. The current
challenge for each of the four SGs is to design our structures to readily
accommodate new constituencies.
Chuck
For
discussion
Some recent
activity with new organisations seeking involvement inside the GNSO has opened
up the thought that maybe the delineation of the two house we have currently
proposed is too narrow. It was based on old thinking.
The two houses
are:
a) users
b) ICANN
contracted parties
On reflection this
division into two does NOT reflect the totality of potential
stakeholders.
A division
between:
a)
users
b) domain name
suppliers
may be a better
fit.
The parties with
no home in the proposed structure are:
a) applicant
registries in the new TLD process (not yet a contract with
ICANN)
b) resellers of
domain names (with no contract with ICANN)
c) sellers of
registry services based on sub-domains (with no contract with
ICANN)
These three
categories have little communality with true user interests (a safe place
to communicate or do business)
and much more with
the contracted parties ( eg want to be a registry / shared customer
base / focus on registry pricing).
Should we not
extend the scope of the contracted parties house to fit these sort of
organisations inside if the desire is there ?
Philip