RE: [council] For the April 10 teleconference

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

Milton-

Thanks for the suggestion on the gTLD Constituency.  

As you know, each Constituency establishes its own procedures for
membership, and ours has established a procedure similar to that used by the
Registrar Constituency that accredited registries are eligible for
membership.  (The ICANN Bylaws were modified to prevent any one company from
holding more than one seat on the Names Council, as you may know, which is
why the gTLD Constituency has thee potential but only one actual seat on
three Council.)   We in VeriSign expect, and look forward, to the day fairly
soon when we will be joined by other accredited registries and our
Constituency has as many seats on the Council as does, say, the
non-commercial Constituency.

I'm sure that you will not be surprised to hear that over the years, quite a
few comments have been raised about the representative ness of the
non-commercial Constituency of the several million NGO's that make up the
global non-profit sector.  I have referred all such questions to the
Constituency itself and will continue to oppose any proposal that the
Council get involved in such questions.

Roger

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] 
Sent:	Saturday, April 07, 2001 1:18 AM
To:	council@dnso.org
Subject:	[council] For the April 10 teleconference

Bringing the DNSO constituency structure up to date:
Preliminary notes

Principles and issues:

1. A gTLD constituency should represent prospective registries as well as
incumbent registries. It is unfair and inconsistent with competition policy
norms to allow those who have been granted TLD resources to rule on policies
regarding who shall get them in the future. I also note that a registrar
constituency was created and seated before any registrars had been
accredited by ICANN. A simple membership criterion would be to extend
membership to any organization that confrormed with ICANN's application
process (past and future) and paid its application fee. 

2. We should create an individual domain name holders' constituency on the
same timetable as the new gTLD constituency. The DNSO review lends support
to that objective. The addition of 2 seats for gTLDs alone would make the NC
as a whole even more slanted toward business interests than it is now,
especially given the significant amount of overlap between registrars and
registries.

Objectives and timetables:

1. Rough draft charter(s) should be prepared in time to be discussed at the
Stockholm meeting.

2. An open meeting of prospective constituency members (IDNO and gTLD)
should be held at the Stockholm meeting, to discuss the draft(s).

3. The Names Council should be prepared to review the rough drafts and offer
some guidance at Stockholm, but not make any definitive pronouncements. If
there are competing drafts we should allow (fixed duration) testimony from
advocates before the NC session. 

4. Consensus charters should be ready for final approval at the October
Names Council teleconference.

5. The newly chartered gTLD and individual name holder constituencies, with
a full complement of 3 positions, should be seated at the November 2001
ICANN annal meeting.