RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Roger raised some valid points in his message below. A new registry constituency must have clear membership criteria. However, it is unfair to restrict membership in the gTLD constituency to those who are already licensed, as they would have strong incentives to limit competitive entry.

Fortunately, there is a simple way around this problem. 

The new registry constituency can consist of any organization that has officially applied to ICANN to become a registry. 

At this point in time, that means all those organizations that paid ICANN's $50,000 non-refundable application fee. 

This is a simple, clear criterion. No one can contend that those who applied are not seriously committed to ICANN and to the registry business.

--MM

>>> "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com> 03/26/01 07:53 AM >>>

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.