[council] Registry Operators et al
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