[registrars] Fw: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

Below is a memo from the gTLD constituency raising questions relating to the
formation of a ccTLD SO and its implications for the dnso.
Please note that this memo suggests that a gTLD SO (or a Registrar SO) could
be justified on the same (or similar) grounds as a ccTLD SO.
I think the time is now approaching for Registrars to consider
re-structuring issues.  These issues are not going to go away but, with the
move by the ccTLD community to establish their own SO,  will inevitably take
on greater importance.  In order to protect Registrar interests, we need to
be prepared.  As Chuck's memo makes clear, there are currently no policy
principles  in terms of which  re-structuring issues can be determined.
Chuck's memo represents an attempt to identify such principles and serves to
give notice that principles used to justify the formation of a ccTLD SO
could also be used to justify the formation of a gTLD SO (and possibly a
Registrar SO).
Clearly, this would have a major impact on the dnso and could lead to a
separation of supply side interest from demand-side interests.  (With g/tld
Registries, ccTLD Registries and Registrars each having their own SO, this
could leave  predominantly  user groups (IP constituency, Non-commercial,
Business, and ISPs) in the dnso.  Obvioulsy this would have a major impact
on the ICANN Board structure and election process.

Food for thought.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: "'Sandy Harris'" <sandy@storm.ca>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo


> MEMORANDUM
> July 24, 2001
>
> At the Stockholm meeting in early June, the ccTLD managers present voted
> unanimously to withdraw from the DNSO and form a ccTLD Supporting
> Organization.
>
> The gTLD Registry Constituency of the DNSO recently formed a task force to
> survey the contractual and other issues raised by the possible formation
of
> a ccTLD SO.  We ask the ICANN community to consider the following
questions.
>
> -- Chuck Gomes, chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
>
> I.  Contractual questions
>
> A. Will it be a condition of creation of a new SO that the ccTLDs be
> required to enter into a contract with ICANN? Will that contract require
> compliance with consensus policies?  If not, especially with regard to
open
> ccTLDs, would that constitute inequitable treatment in violation of ByLaw
> and contract requirements?
> B. What should be the relationship between a ccTLD-ICANN contract on
> re-delegation to a general ICANN policy on presumptive right to renewal
for
> uTLDs (unsponsored TLDs) or sTLDs (sponsored TLDs)?
>
> II.  Reasons to have SOs
>
> A. If the rationale for creation of a ccTLD SO is (at least in part)
> based on ensuring the payment of fees to ICANN, would that rationale also
> support creation of other SOs more directly reflecting the interests and
> views of others who also pay a high portion of ICANN fees?
> B. If the rationale for a ccTLD SO involves assuring adequate
> representation on the ICANN Board of those whose interests may diverge and
> who are bound by contracts with ICANN, would that support creation of
> numerous additional SOs to reflect the distinct interests of gTLDs, sTLDs,
> registrars, registrants, etc.?
> C. Are sTLDs sufficiently differently situated from uTLDs, with respect
> to their contractual relationships with ICANN and the role of Sponsoring
> Organizations in the development of policies, that they should have their
> own SO?
>
> III.  Creation of policies
>
> A. If ccTLDs had their own SO, would domain name policy issues be
> required to be referred, routinely, to two or more SOs? Will that increase
> or diminish the difficulty of developing and documenting consensus
policies?
> B. Would a ccTLD SO have multiple constituencies, allowing groups
> affected by ccTLD policies to participate in ccTLD policy creation?
> C. Would gTLD registries have input into ccTLD SO deliberations or
> would ccTLDs have input into DNSO deliberations? If not, how would
> disagreements be resolved?  Would the Board resolve such disputes? How
would
> consensus among affected parties be developed and documented?
> IV.  Effect on the DNSO
>
> A. If a ccTLD SO were created, what structural changes in any remaining
> DNSO would be necessary?
> B. Would current contractual documents be required to be revised if the
> Names Council no longer existed or if it was not a definitive source of
> judgment on consensus policies impacting gTLD registries? Should gTLD
> registries agree to any such changes?
>
> V.  Board membership
>
> A. If a ccTLD SO were allowed to elect a specified number of members of
> the ICANN Board, would that diminish the role of the DNSO in selecting
Board
> members? Would it increase the number of Board members familiar with
> registry operations?
> B. Would creation of an sTLD SO increase the representation of the
> "registry voice" on the Board? If sTLDs declined to continue to
participate
> in the DNSO, would that force the creation of a separate SO for each
> category of registry?
> C. If the main job of the Board is to recognize documented consensus,
> should Board membership be reallocated to assure that every group that
could
> prevent a consensus (or unmask a false claim of consensus) on important
> policy issues has an appropriate voice?
> VI.  Structural proposals
>
> A. What structural changes will make sense in light of ICANN's purpose?
> B. Should restructuring provide an occasion for reallocating fees and
> costs across a wider array of groups?
> C. Should a restructuring lead to substantial innovations in meeting
> structure and use of online deliberation tools?
> D. Would a realignment of interests around SOs, combined with separate
> at large elections of a few Board members and the creation of an open
forum
> for public participation in each SO, help to resolve disputes concerning
> representation of registrants and individuals, diminish complaints
regarding
> capture of the DNSO by particular constituencies and overlaps between DNSO
> constituencies, fix the dysfunctional performance of the General Assembly
> and Names Council, and remedy other problems?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:01 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Subject: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency Memo
>
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> >
> > The attached document is a memo from the gTLD Constituency that contains
a
> > list of questions that we believe need to be asked regarding the
possible
> > establishment of an ICANN ccTLD Supporting Organization.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> > Chair, gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >  <<072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc>>
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----------------------------------------------------
> >
Name:
> 072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc
> >    072401 gTLD Registry Constituency memo for ICANN community.doc
Type:
> Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
> >
Encoding:
> base64
>
> Please do not post documents in proprietary formats such as MS word.
>
> Some of us "Don't do Windows". Even among those that do have one
> or more Win-boxes about, many of us will not open such attachments
> because of virus risks. Some systems automatically discard them at
> the firewall.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>