FW: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: FW: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:54:34 -0500
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AclWk5BsnF/k/i7bEEGW3gSB/yew2gALx/OAAHmZBNkAGfQPcAAL+oOwAAEjL4AAAQXHIAAA1s7wAAEZDQcAAyogEA==
- Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach
Title: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach
With Patrick's permission, here are a couple more ideas
for possible Contracted Party House constituencies.
Chuck
Another possible constituency could be a constituency of
data escrow providers. This is not a large group, but they do have a contract
with ICANN (through either the three-way or four-way agreements with the
respective registries.
I could see a constituency for Registry Continuity
(or Registry Operations) providers, if we ever went ahead with a certification
program for registry operations as separate from TLD operators.
Just two
ideas.
Patrick
--
Patrick L. Jones
Registry Liaison
Manager &
Support to ICANN Nominating Committee
Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names & Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del
Rey, CA 90292
Tel: +1 310 301 3861
Fax: +1 310 823 8649
patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx
On 12/8/08 8:00 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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