Alan,
There is at least one flaw in your analogy. Registrants and resellers
have a choice in the registrars they will work with and each of those
registrars have their own registration/reseller agreements. Registries
and registrars have no choice: they all must agree to abide by consensus
policies.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:41 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
>
>
> Chuck, that argument made sense when ICANN was started and
> the world was a lot simpler, but I am not sure it is as strong today.
>
> Today, registrars and registries effectively (even though not
> always using the term) sub-contract parts of their
> ICANN-mandated responsibilities to other parties. Therefore
> those other parties are indirectly but effectively bound by
> consensus policy as well. Using this argument, registry
> service providers and registrar resellers could well be
> defined as "contracted parties".
>
> The argument regarding being bound by changeable terms may
> well be true in the general case, but in relation to ICANN
> matters, pretty much every domain registrant agrees to terms
> that can unilaterally be changed without notice by registrars.
>
> But regardless of the specific arguments, we seem to have a
> group of parties who are or will be significant players in
> the domain game, and both GNSO houses say that they cannot
> belong. That is not a credible and sustainable model.
>
> Alan
>
> At 14/07/2009 11:01 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> >It gets very frustrating to go through this same issue over and over
> >again. There is a very clear reason why the RyC and the RrC are
> >restricted to those who have registry or registrar agreements with
> >ICANN: In those agreements, registries and registrars commit
> in advance
> >to implementing consensus policies that are within the picket fence
> >without having any knowledge of the details of those
> polices. That is
> >a very exceptional situation in the world of business
> contracting as I
> >have to believe attorneys know full well. As a result of
> that 'blind'
> >commitment, registries and registrars can be seriously impacted by
> >policy development actions of the GNSO.
> >
> >I can accept the fact that some may not have any empathy for the
> >contracted parties and may not like this but let's at least not
> >continue to retread ground that we have covered many times before.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Rosette, Kristina
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:47 PM
> > > To: Council GNSO
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I the only who is troubled by the fact that restricting
> > > membership in the registrar and registry constituency to entities
> > > that are ICANN contracted parties effectively gives ICANN control
> > > over which entities are and are not members and the
> timing by which
> > > entities become eligible for membership?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 9:25 PM
> > > To: Council GNSO
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, it is an old, important issue that is still
> unresolved and
> > > > must be resolved before the GNSO restructure can take place.
> > >
> > > It is certainly worth considering further.
> > >
> > > Membership of the registry and registrar constituency has
> generally
> > > been very clear - based on the legal entity being a
> contracted party
> > > with ICANN as either a TLD manager or a gTLD registrar. This
> > > information is publicly available on the ICANN website.
> > >
> > > There are other parties involved in the process of the
> domain name
> > > value chain.
> > >
> > > E.g
> > >
> > > (1) Consultants - there are many consultants and lawyers that
> > > provide services to the members of the registry and registrar
> > > constituency or members of other constituencies - these
> consultants
> > > and lawyers can be split across the business constituency
> and the IP
> > > constituency.
> > >
> > > (2) Internet Service Providers - while some purely provide
> > > connectivity
> > > - many of these companies have moved into value added
> services - and
> > > many are significant suppliers of domain names (either as
> accredited
> > > registrars, or as resellers of accredited registrars).
> > >
> > > (3) Other domain name resellers - e.g portals (e.g
> Yahoo), software
> > > companies (e.g Microsoft), search engines (e.g Google),
> web hosting
> > > companies - there are wide range of domain name
> resellers. Some of
> > > thee are very large companies and supply large volumes (e.g over
> > > 100,000
> > > names) of domain names to their customers. At different
> > > times staff or
> > > consultants/external lawyers of these companies have been
> members of
> > > registrar, business constituency or IP constituency.
> > >
> > > (4) Domainers - these companies operate a portfolio of
> domain names
> > > - they often do not supply domain name registration services to
> > > other parties - but may sell some of their domain name
> licences from
> > > time-to-time. They may be accredited registrars
> (usually to get the
> > > lowest possible wholesale price for domains), or may simply be
> > > resellers. Where they are not registrars - it is not clear what
> > > constituency that should be members of. They would probably
> > > consider themselves to be members of the business
> constituency - as
> > > they are "business users" of domain names (earn revenue from
> > > advertising, or from the future sale of the domain name licence),
> > > and not involved in supplying domain name registration
> services to
> > > third parties.
> > >
> > > For consultants or lawyers it is often complex as they
> may have some
> > > customers/clients that are associated with the domain name supply
> > > industry and some customers/clients that are not.
> > >
> > > In many cases large companies have different departments (or legal
> > > subsidiaries) - e.g a legal department, network connectivity
> > > department, domains/hosting department - and it can be
> convenient
> > > to have staff members of different
> departments/subsidiaries to join
> > > different constituencies (e.g Registrar, ISP constituency, IP
> > > constituency).
> > >
> > > So do you make the decision on the basis of the corporate entity
> > > (could be operating across multiple area of interest in
> the GNSO),
> > > or on the basis of the individual (may work for a particular
> > > department of a corporate, or may work for many clients).
> > >
> > > Ultimately this will probably be hard to resolve.
> Perhaps the best
> > > to hope for is that members of constituencies clearly define their
> > > potential conflicts of interest. This could be at a
> corporate level
> > > and at an individual level (e.g identify clients involved
> in different
> > > constituencies if a consultant). It would also be
> useful to require
> > > this to happen at the beginning of establishing working
> groups (not
> > > as a method of exclusion - but to clearly state potential
> > > conflicts).
> > >
> > >
> > > The reality is that many members of the GNSO community
> can potentially
> > > participate in multiple roles. Trying to create very
> tight exclusion
> > > rules (e.g you can be a member of constituency x -
> provided you have
> > > no other relationship with any member of another
> > > constituency) may unnecessarily restrict participation.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bruce Tonkin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>