RE: [registrars] Motion to Restrict Registry Participation in Constituency

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

Hello Ross,


> 
> It is precisely this process that I propose that we continue 
> to follow.
> Specifically;
> 
> 1. Conversation on the various amendments stays open until the end of
> this week.
> 2. I will forward the final synthesis of a motion based on 
> your input to
> the mailing list on Friday.
> 3. Comment and review will occur over the weekend.
> 4. I will forward the final version to the executive 
> committee for their
> consideration early Monday for ballot preparation and announcement.

Your process makes sense.

> 
> Motions and Amendments:
> 
> Original Motion - "... that any representative of any ICANN recognized
> gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to registry
> Proprietary Information
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.1 
> in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.2 
> also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
> participate in this constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a
> period of one year since the last receipt of such information and that
> our by-laws be amended to reflect this." 

I don't support the motion as stated above.

My view is that:
(1) Any ICANN accredited registrar may join the constituency and have a vote
(2) Any ICANN accredited registrar may nominate a representative to the constituency to exercise the company's vote

I am OK with a criteria for selecting a "representative" of the constituency as a whole.
e.g an elected officer of the exec committee, an elected representative on the GNSO Council, an elected representative on a task force.  Of course a company that is a registrar may be asked to nominate a representative to a particular committee or task force, but that representative would be only representing the particular registrar and not the constituency as a whole.

I think we already have some protection against a number of wholly owned subsidiaries having additional votes.

I am not concerced about a person within the consistituency exerting undue influence.  I am concerned more about a person that cliams to be representing the constituency as a whole that follows a personal or company agenda to the exclusion of the registrar constituency as a whole.


> Proposed Amendment #1 - "... that any officer, employee, or board
> director of any ICANN recognized gTLD registry not be permitted to
> participate in this constituency at any level, in any capacity, for a
> period of one year since holding such position and that our by-laws be
> amended to reflect this."

Two problems with this amendment.  "In any capacity" is too broad, and a board director is not necessary in possession of any per registrar information.  I am ok with officer or employee of a registry, in regards to criteria for representing the constituency as a whole.


> Proposed Amendment #2 - "... that any officer, employee, or board
> director of any ICANN recognized gTLD registry in the possession of or
> with access to registry Proprietary Information
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm
> #A-3.1 in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information
> (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.ht
> m#A- not be permitted to participate in this constituency at any level,
> in any capacity, for a period of one year since holding such position
> and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this."

This is better.  Prefer the last phrase be
"not be permitted to REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENCY AS A WHOLE, for a period of one year since holding such position and that our by-laws be amended to reflect this.


> Proposed Amendment #3 - "... that in keeping with the selective
> membership criteria of other DNSO constituencies, the Registrar
> constituency represents the interests of a specific sector, specifically
> those of ICANN Accredited Registrars. To avoid conflicts of interest,
> this typically excludes entities whose primary relationship with ICANN
> is as a TLD Registry Operator. Further, be it resolved that our by-laws
> be amended to reflect this."

How about this as an alternative motion:

That any representative of any ICANN recognized
gTLD registry in the possession of or with access to registry Proprietary Information
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.1 
in the case of GNR) or Registry Sensitive Information 
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-apph-06mar01.htm#A-3.2 
also in the case of GNR) not be permitted to
REPRESENT THE CONSTITUENCY AS A WHOLE as either an elected member of the Executive committee of the constituency, or an elected member on a council, task force, or committee for a
period of one year since the last receipt of such information and that
our by-laws be amended to reflect this.  Each candidate for election to represent the constituency as a whole must declare any possible conflicts of interest, and include a statement to the effect that they are not in possession of any registry sensitive information, prior to any election.

Regards,
Bruce