RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] a possible wrinkle

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri:

Not unless they sign a contract with ICANN that requires them to adhere
to Consensus Policies.  The two chambers would be one for contracted
parties and another for non-contracted parties.  If the distinction were
providers vs. non-providers, the provider chamber arguably should be
even broader than registries, registrars, and ISPs.  There are dozens of
categories of providers that enable business/consumer users to operate
safely on the Internet.

Thanks.

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:20 PM
To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] a possible wrinkle


Hi,

Again apologies for what may be considered by some as a disruptive  
question, but these occur to me while jogging and when i can't answer  
them by myself, I figure I should ask the group in the effort to leave  
no stone unturned.

One of the conversations included a mention that the ISPC constituency  
was as much Provider as it was Consumer/User.  Additionally during our  
conversations with Roberto, he indicated that perhaps some of the  
companies involved in this constituency could fit into at least 2  
different stakeholder groups.

So, my question, while we are dealing with the complexity of a bi- 
cameral solution, a complexity I still do not see the value in, is it  
perhaps worth considering that some the commercial user side of the  
ISPC would situate itself in one chamber, while the provider side of  
ISPC would situate itself in the other.

a.