Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] from the "creative solutions" department

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 7 Jul 2008, at 08:24, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> There is talk of “contracted parties.”
> Am I the first person to recognize that the contracts that bind  
> registries and registrars also regulate users? Most of the policy  
> obligations flow down to users ultimately. In other words, domain  
> name registrants are contracted parties as well.
all te more reason for paritiy - going in all directions.


> How about including some user votes in the registry and registrar  
> constituencies?
Structurally I believe there is an important reason to orient the SOs  
to registrant participants (not a difficult barrier) and the ACS to  
User interests with bidirectional liaisons of various types.  While in  
many respects the issues may seem similar (IPR-Access to Knowledge),  
the underlying concerns are different.  Also given te new underlying  
open WG mandate, at the basic policy discussion level - everyone will  
be able to participate.
I certainly believe this issue is wider then the GNSO council vote  
assignment - as it affects the entire structure of ICANN. I think  
there is fundamental importance in having full multistakeholder  
representations in both the registrant  and user dimensions and I do  
not believe we should be chipping away at it.
If we keep going in this direction, I believe that next we will  
talking about Ry, R, C and NC constituency seats on ALAC.

a.