<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: [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


From: Patrick Jones [mailto:patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:23 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Robert Hoggarth
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach

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