<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach</TITLE>
<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><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=656185317-08122008>With Patrick's permission, here are a couple more ideas
for possible Contracted Party House constituencies.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=656185317-08122008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=656185317-08122008>Chuck</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Patrick Jones
[mailto:patrick.jones@icann.org] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 08, 2008
11:23 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Gomes, Chuck<BR><B>Cc:</B> Robert
Hoggarth<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle
in the two houses approach<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Just two
ideas.<BR><BR>Patrick<BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Patrick L. Jones<BR>Registry Liaison
Manager &<BR>Support to ICANN Nominating Committee<BR>Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names & Numbers<BR>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<BR>Marina del
Rey, CA 90292<BR>Tel: +1 310 301 3861<BR>Fax: +1 310 823 8649<BR><A
href="patrick.jones@icann.org">patrick.jones@icann.org</A>
<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 12/8/08 8:00 AM, "Gomes, Chuck" <<A
href="cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></SPAN></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
face=Arial>Philip,<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
face=Arial>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.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
face=Arial>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.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
face=Arial>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.<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT
face=Arial>Chuck<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=3>
</FONT><FONT face="Tahoma, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><B>From:</B> <A
href="owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>
[<A
href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Philip Sheppard<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December
08, 2008 10:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Council GNSO'<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:
[council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses
approach<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>Chuck, thanks for your first thoughts on
this.<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial>My
concern about "GNSO flexibility" as you put it is that the
flexibility at present is 100% in the users house!<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial>There
is zero flexibility in the contract parties house.<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>In other words its contract parties (a fixed two
constituency group) and the rest of the world in the users
house.<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>This fits poorly to the "birds of a feather" concept and
the idea of new constituencies.<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT><FONT face=Arial>The
relationships between users and the three types i mentioned are a
direct parallel to the contract parties.<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the
contract parties house (that is not a splinter group)
?<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR></FONT><FONT
face=Arial>Philip<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT
face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR></FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>