RE: [registrars] Revised Draft Position

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Rob,

> 
> 1)  By having "users" and "at large" each having 5 seats, and bundling
> governments into the "at large", you have effectively given 
> 2/3rds of the
> seats to the same community.  Can you please let us know how you
> differentiate between "users" and "at large" as they seem to 
> be the same
> group.

Agreed.

> 
> 2)  On the call, we suggested not using the term "providers", 
> as it can be
> taken to mean too many groups.  For example, ISP's might 
> think they are
> providers.  I thought we elected to use the term "contracted 
> parties" to
> mean those with a direct contract with ICANN.  This allows us 
> to include
> groups like the RAR's, Root servers operators and even ccTLD's once
> contracts are in place.  It really does define the actual 
> stakeholders that
> are funding ICANN.

Yes - I think that is better terminology.

> 
> 3)  Although part of the reason I broke out the government appointed
> positions seperately was indeed  that the at-large process 
> may not form
> quickly enough, and the GOV's could appoint people.  

Gov's can be just as slow as the At Large process.

I think allowing the existing At large directors to serve on the nominating
committee is a good start for the process.

> 
> 5)  I think the statement about the Policy Council "they 
> should act in the
> best interest of end users" needs to be re-thought.  I would 
> suggest it
> should be broader, to include "stability of the DNS and the Internet,
> competition, etc ....".  While end users certainly play a 
> part, the council
> should have other criteria to measure against as well.

Adding "stability of the DNS" is a sensible addition.

Regards,
Bruce
>