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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Alan

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
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >