- To: <gnso-council-draft2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Section 5.4
- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:42:36 +0200
The proposed new draft of section 5.4 is somewhat of a shock to those of us who
spent the summer of 2008 negotiating a new GNSO structure.
5.4 states : "Any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for
recognition as a new or separate Constituency in the Non-Contracted Parties
This fundamentally destroys the intended balance in the House concept of
dividing user from supplier interests.
The House balance is already tilted toward registries and registrars.
5.4 now says in future there is a strong likelihood that interests associated
with R&Rs will be able to dilute the effectiveness of the Users House.
This is not theoretical.
There are pending constituency applications from:
City TLDs (registries and would be registries)
IDNs (strong registry interests)
And talk of a registry operator constituency.
What of a reseller constituency?
This proposal is unacceptable and needs removal.
The Houses construct did not envisage the development of such new Constituencies
and it is therefore incumbent on the Board to consider options to avoid this
contradiction. There are probably three options:
1. Continue on the two Houses path but remove the straitjacket on the Contracted
Parties house by changing it to a Suppliers House and a Users House, thus
creating clear places for these different interests.
2. Live with the Contract Parties House and refuse all constituency applications
from other supplier interests.
3. Accept that circumstances have changed and end the concept of the two Houses
approach, continuing for now with the existing structure.