Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q11-Q13 Related to SG group defintions.

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree the issue of resellers is important.

However, I believe that in the present context, the main issue to consider
is that of status within the GNSO structure as defined by the ICANN process.
In this context, any party which does not have a contract with ICANN should
not sit in the contracted house of the GNSO. This is the core reason for
having the two houses.

There are many potential conflicts of interests within the GNSO. Just
looking at your members list for example, I see entities that are also
active in IP and some that are involved, or intending to be involved, as
registries. As far as I am concerned, the bicameral structure works
precisely because it allows entities that may have several areas of
expertise or interests to be included, as long as the core distinction
between contracted (to ICANN) and non-contracted parties stays in place.

This is why I am opposed to adding both:

"and including as observers organisations who wish to become Registries;" to
section 5, Item 1a.

and

"and including as observers resellers;" to section 5, Item 1b.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 14/05/09 10:05, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Stephane wrote (about resellers):
> As they are not contracted to ICANN, they should sit in the
> non-contracted house.
> ----------------------------------
> 
> This is a fundamental issue.
> In the ICANN context (with an assumption of differentiation of interest),
> resellers have a
> conflict of interest with commercial registrants because they by contract are
> bound to
> represent registrar interests. We do not believe it is ethical to have your
> agents acting in
> this way.
> 
> Resolving this is a somewhat important issue.
> 
> 
>