ICANN/GNSO
DNSO and GNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Proposed NC resolution on reform - 2 amended


Please note one amendment (new whereas 4):
 
Proposed NC resolution (2) amended
1. Whereas the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) has published its second implementation report http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02sep02.htm
2. Whereas the basis for stakeholder representation in ICANN SOs to date has been to give equal votes to each affected stakeholder constituency;
3. Whereas the report suggests a significant change in the voting balance of ICANN stakeholders to be represented in the new Generic Name Supporting Organisation (GNSO) council whereby it gives twice as many votes to the two stakeholders who have contracts with ICANN (gTLD registries and registrars);
4. Whereas the 4+4+3 proposed voting structure gives a veto to the contracted suppliers over all ICANN consensus policies, thus negating the balancing role of the three neutral council members,
5. Whereas the reasoning behind this shift of power is to achieve a balance between contract parties and users;
6. Whereas such a balance only makes sense once competition in domain name registration is as near perfect as ICANN can reasonably achieve;
7. Whereas ICANN has not yet achieved full competition in the supply of gTLD registry services;
8. Whereas there remain problems of competitive restrictive practices in the context of name transfers within the registrar community;
The NC therefore resolves that:
any variation from the principle of equal stakeholder constituency representation and votes in the proposed GNSO council is unacceptable.
 
 
 
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>