RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

["Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>]

As with the Registrar Constituency, the Registry Constituency has taken the
position that it consists of ICANN-accredited organizations.  We have
adopted this approach for three reasons:

1) While there are quite a few proposals floating around for "registry
industry trade associations" that would include any business that considers
itself a registry, this Constituency is an ICANN DNSO Constituency, whose
principal purpose is to provide input into the ICANN DNSO process.  So,
while the registry industry may well need and get a broad trade association,
we did not feel that the " DNSO Constituency " was the venue for it; and
2) In order to provide some meaningful boundary for the DNSO Constituency,
accreditation is a fairly clear demarcation;  beyond that, things get murky
and fairly debatable; and  
3) Whereas the commitment that an organization makes to express interest in
becoming a gTLD registry is limited,  the commitment rises considerably
after accreditation, ensuring the full commitment of the Constituency to the
DNSO's work.  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] 
Sent:	Sunday, March 25, 2001 10:55 PM
To:	council@dnso.org
Cc:	ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org
Subject:	Re: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

I have a question about the gTLD constituency.

It seems to me that there are now at least 25 recognized generic TLD
operators or applicants. 7 of them were authorized to get new contracts back
in November. Of the remaining dozen or so, ICANN Staff has repeatedly said
that their applications are not rejected but are basically "on hold"
awaiting the results of the so-called "proof of concept." 

Why are these organizations not included in the gTLD constituency? 

Are these registries and registry applicants not deserving of representation
in the DNSO? This is particularly difficult to understand for the 7 new
registries. Why has the DNSO not quickly taken measures to create a REAL
gTLD constituency? 

In the current discussions of the revised Verisign contract, it would be
extremely useful to have input and representation from other registries
besides Verisign.