<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Philip,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Actually, this is not a new train of thought although the
specific stakeholder groups you name may not have been considered
directly. You will recall that ISPs were discussed as fitting into the
supplier and user sides. In their first iteration, the BGC WG used the
term suppliers just like you do, but it was realized that that there is a
critical difference between a contracted supplier and a non-contracted supplier;
hence the ultimate distinction between contracted parties and non-contracted
parties (users).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>As far as the first party you name, '<FONT
color=#000000>applicant registries in the new TLD process</FONT>', they
certainly do have common interests with registries but until they execute a
contract with ICANN, they are still on the user side. At the same time, they are
welcome to participate in the RyC as active observers. As just one
example, we welcomed dotBerlin to participate in the RyC as an active observer a
long time ago.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>'R<FONT color=#000000>esellers of domain names</FONT>' and
'<FONT color=#000000>sellers of registry services based on sub-domains</FONT>'
also have some common interests with contracted registration service providers
but they are also users of domain names. They can easily be categorized as
'commercial' or 'noncommercial' and even though they may not fit well into
existing user constituencies, they might be excellent candidates for new
constituencies in the applicable stakeholder groups. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>In my opinion, the BGC WG recommendations appropriately
tried to ensure that the improved GNSO would be flexible enough to accommodate
changing constituencies within all of the stakeholder groups. The current
challenge for each of the four SGs is to design our structures to readily
accommodate new constituencies.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=625575714-08122008><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Chuck</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip
Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 08, 2008 9:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
'Council GNSO'<BR><B>Subject:</B> [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a
wrinkle in the two houses approach<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008><STRONG>For
discussion</STRONG></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>Some recent
activity with new organisations seeking involvement inside the GNSO has opened
up the thought that maybe the delineation of the two house we have currently
proposed is too narrow. It was based on old thinking.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>The two houses
are:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>a) users
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>b) ICANN
contracted parties</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>On reflection this
division into two does NOT reflect the totality of potential
stakeholders.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>A division
between:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>a)
users</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>b) domain name
suppliers</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>may be a better
fit.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>The parties with
no home in the proposed structure are:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>a) applicant
registries in the new TLD process (not yet a contract with
ICANN)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>b) resellers of
domain names (with no contract with ICANN)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>c) sellers of
registry services based on sub-domains (with no contract with
ICANN)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>These three
categories have little communality with true user interests (a safe place
to communicate or do business)</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>and much more with
the contracted parties ( eg want to be a registry / shared customer
base / focus on registry pricing).</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=546232514-08122008>Should we not
extend the scope of the contracted parties house to fit these sort of
organisations inside if the desire is there ?</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008>Philip</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=546232514-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>