[council] Registry Operators et al

Thu Jul 16 19:15:53 UTC 2009

I agree with Tim, these are good points.

Tony Harris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim at godaddy.com>
To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>; "Terry L Davis,P.E." 
<tdavis2 at speakeasy.net>; "GNSO Council " <council at gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al

>
> An *interest group* does not necessarily make a constituency,
> at least in my opinion.
>
> gTLD registries contracted to ICANN is a consituency, City/Geo
> gTLD registries is an interest group that is a subset of the
> gTLD registries constituency and does not constitute a *new*
> constituency.
>
> Non-commercial users is a constituency. Non-commercial users
> who have a special interest in security and safety is an
> interest group that is a subset of that constituency and does
> not *need* a new constituency to express those interests.
>
> I don't have a problem with new constituencies but if the
> Board is not cautious about what it allows we will have a
> complicated mix of constituencies representing narrow
> special interests and none of us will ever get anything
> done efficiently.
>
> This not about making it *difficult* to add constituencies.
> It is about doing it right.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Date: Thu, July 16, 2009 9:20 am
> To: "Terry L Davis, P.E." <tdavis2 at speakeasy.net>, "Tim Ruiz"
> <tim at godaddy.com>, "GNSO Council " <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>
> I fully understand the complications of adding new constituencies to SGs
> but making the barrier high does not sound like a way to encourage
> openness for new interest groups to participate. Moreover, I think that
> approach would be contrary to the Board approved recommendations. In
> fact, I believe those recommendations establish a goal of making it
> easier to establish new constituencies.
>
> I don't think it is wise for us to work against the Board
> recommendations without further consultation with the SIC. I don't mean
> to suggest that all the recommendations are perfect and should not be
> challenged but I think we should deal with any instances where some
> think that might be he case in an appropriate manner. At the Board's
> direction, Staff has encouraged the formation of new constituencies and
> several organizations have expressed interest. I think it sends mixed
> signals to those groups if the Council is sending messages that are
> opposite to what the Board and Staff are sending.
>
> Rather than trying to make it difficult for new constituencies to be
> added, I think a more appropriate focus would be to explore ways in
> which new stakeholders with common interests can be effectively
> integrated into the SGs. I believe that we already solved the biggest
> problem with regard to new constituencies by disconnecting
> constituencies from the election of Council seats. Assuming that issue
> is solved, we should focus on how to provide clear and open ways for new
> players to get involved in SGs in a way that fairly includes them not
> just in WGs but also in SG influence of Council responsibilities of
> managing the policy development process.
>
> I personally think that we have to be careful of the perception that we
> are trying to entrench the influence of incumbents in the GNSO. The
> risk of capture was one that was identified when the original
> constituency model was developed and it will always be something that
> should be avoided. I am not making any judgment about whether it is a
> problem now or not, but I think we can all agree that we want to avoid
> any SG being captured by a subset of interests in a particular category
> of stakeholders.
>
> Tim is correct that the main focus should be at the WG level and we have
> opened that up already even before the WG model is more fully developed.
> But I don't think we should leave the impression with new groups that
> want to organize into constituencies (or interest groups) that it will
> be difficult for them to meaningfully be a part of the policy management
> responsibilities that will happen at the Council level via SGs.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Terry L Davis, P.E.
>> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 9:45 AM
>> To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO Council '
>> Cc: 'Bruce Tonkin'
>> Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> I very much share your concerns with the creation of new
>> constituencies and the associated disruptions necessary to
>> accommodate them. As you said, the threshold needs to be
>> extremely high.
>>
>> Take care
>> Terry
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
>> > council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 7:21 AM
>> > To: GNSO Council
>> > Cc: Bruce Tonkin
>> > Subject: RE: [council] Registry Operators et al
>> >
>> >
>> > Some personal thoughts not vetted with the RrC: I think the bar for
>> > new constituencies should be set fairly high. One of the
>> main puposes
>> > of the restructuring is to focus the actual policy work
>> within the WG
>> > model, and less at the Council level.
>> >
>> > Do backend registry service providers (not contracted with ICANN)
>> > really need to be represented through membership in any new or
>> > existing constituency? Or are their likely interests already well
>> > represented through the RyC and/or RrC?
>> >
>> > Do City/Geo gTLD operators truly represent interests unique
>> enough to
>> > be considered a consitituency? Or can there primary
>> interests already
>> > be well represented through membership in the existing RyC?
>> They may
>> > well represent a special interest group within the RyC, but
>> it seems
>> > unnecessary to form an entirely new constituency.
>> >
>> > Do users whose special interest is security or safety truly
>> represent
>> > a new constituency? Is there any valid reason why those users'
>> > interests cannot be dealt with in one of the existing User
>> > constituencies depending on whether they are commercial or
>> non-commercial?
>> >
>> > It seems dangerous and unnecessary to me to start splintering off
>> > special interest groups into their own constituencies. And
>> remember,
>> > anyone can participate in the PDP WGs, and under the new structure
>> > that should be a bigger concern than having your own
>> special interest
>> > represented on the Council.
>> >
>> > Regarding gTLD applicants, or entities intending to become
>> accredited
>> > as registrars, etc. Is there any reason they cannot be allowed as
>> > observers into the appropriate constituency until such time as they
>> > qualify to be members?
>> >
>> > I think that where we are seemingly headed right now with
>> regards to
>> > new constituencies is too complicated and ultimately unworkable. Th
>> > threshold needs to be extremely high. In fact, I think it would be
>> > difficult to identify an interest group that is cannot fit into an
>> > existing consituency AND is large enough to warrant its own.
>> >
>> > Tim
>> >
>> > -------- Original Message --------
>> > Subject: [council] Registry Operators et al
>> > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard at aim.be>
>> > Date: Wed, July 15, 2009 3:10 am
>> > To: "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> > Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 