[bc-gnso] FILED: Business Constituency (BC) comment on Registry Stakeholder Group charter amendments

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We filed our comment on Registry Stakeholder Group charter amendments today.  
(here<http://www.bizconst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/BC-comment-on-RySG-charter-amendmnets.pdf>
 and below)

Thanks again to J Scott for drafting.

Date: Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 3:43 PM
To: 
"comments-rysg-amend-08may15@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:comments-rysg-amend-08may15@xxxxxxxxx>"
Subject: Business Constituency (BC) comment on Registry Stakeholder Group 
charter amendments

The Business Constituency (“BC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide 
comments to the proposed amendments to the Registry Stakeholder Group (“RySG") 
Charter posted for public comment on May 8, 2015 
(<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rysg-charter-amendments-2015-05-08-en.>link<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rysg-charter-amendments-2015-05-08-en>)

In its proposed amendments, the RySG is making several adjustments to its 
Charter in order to in increase the efficiency of operating the group. The BC 
believes that these amendments will assist the RySG in avoiding delays in its 
decision-making process. Additionally, the BC believes that the proposed 
amendments clarify the Observer status and the purpose of Interest Groups 
within the RySG.

However, the BC is concerned that the RySG continues to ignore recognition of 
non-retail registries as a separate constituency from the retail registries. 
Similarly, the BC believes that the RySG should have taken a serious look at 
eliminating the weighted voting procedure outlined in the RySG Charter.

The BC is mindful that one of the primary purposes of ICANN and the new gTLD 
program itself was to provide more choice for consumers as a benefit for the 
greater public interest.  The BC believes that a failure to allow for the 
formation  of voting constituencies and the weighted voting provisions (even if 
only optional) will continue to allow RySG policy positions to be dominated by 
those registries with a for-profit, retail registry business model, to the 
disadvantage of smaller, non-retail oriented registries.

The BC believes that the failure to create a system that puts all registry 
business models on parity with the legacy registry business models is a serious 
flaw in the proposed amendments.

Notwithstanding these reservations, the BC supports the proposed revisions, but 
it strongly urges the Board to request that the RySG consider further revisions 
to address these serious issues in the very near future.

—
These comments were drafted by J Scott Evans and approved in accordance with 
our charter