RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] a possible wrinkle
- To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] a possible wrinkle
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:25:52 -0400
Although it may currently be forbidden for a given entity to be a
registrar and registry, pretty much everything other combination else
is possible. How about a not-for-profit community ISP?
If this were a phenomena which could significantly alter GNSO
outcomes, it would be worth looking at, but I don't think the
magnitude merits it here.
At 20/07/2008 05:45 AM, you wrote:
Jonathan is correct. If ISPs are registrars, as Alan suggests (and of
course some of them are), then they join the registrar constituency and
participate in the contracting party chamber in that capacity.
Moreover, it makes no sense to give a single constituency double
representation. This is what created the original imbalance that we are
now dealing with.
I don't think Avri's off the cuff suggestion has much merit and we
shouldn't waste time pursuing it. To suggest at this stage of the game
that we start fiddling with the definition and structure of
constituencies is not very helpful.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:43 PM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] a possible wrinkle
> Not unless they sign a contract with ICANN that requires them to
> to Consensus Policies. The two chambers would be one for contracted
> parties and another for non-contracted parties. If the distinction
> providers vs. non-providers, the provider chamber arguably should be
> even broader than registries, registrars, and ISPs. There are dozens
> categories of providers that enable business/consumer users to operate
> safely on the Internet.
> -----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
> 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.