[council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach

[Gomes, Chuck]

Greg,
 
I agree with you that it was not the intent of the BGC WG that it would
never be appropriate for contracted party SGs to admit new
constituencies.  As I previously pointed out in a response to Philip, a
new RySG was already proposed in Cairo and the RyC in working on the
RySG charter is definitely assuming that there could be new RySG
constituencies and hence our charter needs to accommodate that.
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ruth
	Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:49 AM
	To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO
	Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in
the two houses approach
	
	
	I tend to agree with Philip.  If the second house is purely
restricted to parties who have contracts with ICANN, then it will never
be appropriate for it admit new constituencies.  Surely, this was not
the intent of the BGC.
	 
	Greg
________________________________

	From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
	To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
	Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 9:38:39 AM
	Subject: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the
two houses approach
	
	
	For discussion
	 
	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.
	 
	The two houses are:
	a) users  
	b) ICANN contracted parties
	 
	 
	On reflection this division into two does NOT reflect the
totality of potential stakeholders.
	A division between:
	a) users
	b) domain name suppliers
	may be a better fit.
	 
	The parties with no home in the proposed structure are:
	a) applicant registries in the new TLD process (not yet a
contract with ICANN)
	b) resellers of domain names (with no contract with ICANN)
	c) sellers of registry services based on sub-domains (with no
contract with ICANN)
	 
	These three categories have little communality with true user
interests (a safe place to communicate or do business)
	and much more with the contracted parties ( eg want to be a
registry / shared customer base / focus on registry pricing).
	 
	Should we not extend the scope of the contracted parties house
to fit these sort of organisations inside if the desire is there ?
	 
	Philip
	 
	 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20081208/d9713d2b/attachment.html>