Re: [registrars] IMPORTANT UPDATE

["Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> (3) Ross posted a comment to the list on the ICANN restructuring paper
> submitted by the registry constituency. I just want to offer the following
> clarifications. First, the paper was authored by David Johnson legal
counsel
> to the .COOP TLD, not by VeriSign.

Are there two David Johnson's? I saw his name and drew some conclusions -
apologies for the misinformation. Regardless, I still have concerns about
the proposition - the source is largely irrelevant.

<snip>

> Although I believe the draft paper that I circulated among the
> registrar constituency could be more widely accepted, the important thing
to
> remember is that both proposals advocate a Provider Category of
Registrars,
> Registries and ccTLDs in which each would get 2 board seats. I believe
that
> in this situation the registrar and registry interests are mutually
aligned
> and we should work toward the common goal of the provide category.
>

It's not a question of whether or not the Registry and Registrar
Constituencies have a coincidence of interests, but what the degree of
coincidence is.

Two board seats for the Registrars as part of a Provider category is fine
but I believe that the proposal also includes a provision to expand the
mandate of our group to include ccTLD registrar's and related entities as
well. Even if we could preserve the focus of our efforts, membership of this
new group would be in the hundreds, if not thousands. If that's the case,
then perhaps we should re-examine the allocation of seats in this new SO -
or re-examine whether or not it is appropriate to include non-ICANN
accredited entities in this replacement Registrar Constituency.

Just some thoughts...

-rwr