RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip,

 

A possible new RySG constituency was already proposed in Cairo: City gTLDs.  That would not be a splinter group because there are any not city gTLDs that are members of the RyC.  It is true though that they would be a subset of gTLD registries who have contracts with ICANN, so if that is what you mean by splinter group, I suppose you would still categorize them that way.

 

It is also possible, although I admit that I am not aware of any current indication of such, that ICANN could in the future contract with other parties who provide some sort of registration services.  If that ever happened, the contracted party SGs should be able to accommodate them.

 

In the case of the RySG, I can tell you that we are in the early stages of developing the RySG charter and in that regard are discussing a design that would accommodate new registry constituencies if they are formed.

 

Chuck

---

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:32 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach

Chuck, thanks for your first thoughts on this.

My concern about "GNSO flexibility" as you put it  is that the flexibility at present is 100% in the users house!

There is zero flexibility in the contract parties house.

 

In other words its contract parties (a fixed two constituency group)  and the rest of the world in the users house.

 

This fits poorly to the "birds of a feather" concept and the idea of new constituencies.

The relationships between users and the three types i mentioned are a direct parallel to the contract parties.

 

Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the contract parties house  (that is not a splinter group) ?

 

Philip