[ga] Constituency Structure - Supply and Demand
I refer to debate on other lists (see below) and raise it with the DNSO GA.
If you have a look at http://www.dnso.org/ you will see there are seven
"Constituency Groups" in ICANN's DNSO. The purpose of these groups is to
provide input into ICANN's policy process. The existing groups are:
* ccTLD registries
* Commercial and business entities
* gTLD registries
* ISPs and connectivity providers
* Non-commercial domain name holders
* Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests
Within this framework, there is a classification problem. A Registry is a
business, so is a Registrar. In Australia, Connect.com is both a Registry and a
Registrar for .net.au. The new gTLDs have a similar combined model.
After the Registrar, the next step in the supply-demand chain is the
Registration Service Provider or RSP. If you look at Tucows-OpenSRS, they have
5,000 such "resellers". These are not currently included in the "Registrars"
constituency. Finally, there is the "registrant" giving:
(1) Registry (Verisign Registry)
(2) Registry-Registrar (new gTLDs, ccTLDs)
(3) Registrar (ICANN-accredited registrars)
(4) Registration Service Providers (like OpenSRS resellers)
(5) Registrant (may be further sub-divided).
In Australia we separate the chain into "supply" and "demand" of domain names.
There is also a third category for internet organisations such as ISOC.
Structurally this is quite sound although the third category is perhaps less
well-defined that the first two.
Of course, the "registrant" community can also be divided into (a) business (b)
hobbyist (c) personal (d) non-user (i.e. speculator etc.) etc.
Each category has to be identifiable and coherent with respect to the other
categories. Registrants, for example, are easily identified as a constituency
from the whois record. Within that you can have different legal entities.
On the "demand" side most "punters" can be divided into groups such as:
* individuals (.id or .per)
* sole traders and partnerships
* large & small businesses (dotcom)
* networks and service providers (ISPs, ASPs) (.net)
* government authorities (.gov)
* military establishments (.mil)
* associations (trade, cultural, etc) (.asn.au in Australia)
* churches and religions
* charities, NGOs (.org ?)
* educational institutions (dot edu)
* conferences (.conf.au in Australia)
* information resources (.info or .info.au in Australia)
* co-operatives (.coop)
* miscellaneous/other organisations
However, I can also see a need for other "demand" groups like the following:
* mobile phones
* vending machines
* radio & tv stations
* phone boxes
* residences (houses, units, etc.)
* vessels (ships, boats & ferries)
* unincorporated associations
* cars, trucks & taxis
* industrial processes
* railway stations
Some of these will possibly be pushing the case for new TLDs in the ICANN root
and this would promote diversity. This demand has prompted the growth of
alternative TLDs which, together with their registrants, are outside ICANN.
However, there is clearly an inherent division between "supply" and "demand".
The idea of "virtual constituencies" also makes sense given the complexities
involved. I consider the DNSO GA should review its structure in this area.
This analysis identifies one area of difficulty, the ccTLDs. These are clearly
on the "supply" side of the equation but at a different level. This is perhaps
demonstrated by the absence of the ccTLD Registrars from the "registrars"
constituency. Of course, they may or may not have a voice within the ccTLD.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Langdell, PhD <email@example.com>
To: Milton Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY
> I do not know the white paper which is being referred to in this thread (can
> someone give me a link to it please?). But in principal I presume it is
> possible for an organization to argue that it will limit membership of a
> gTLD constituency to only those who either have an ICANN approved TLD or who
> applied for one formally. That said, I think it is clear that such a body
> would represent only a section of the gTLD community, and as time goes by a
> smaller and smaller part of it. Since New.net launched, and respecting that
> there have been alternate TLDs in the market for years (alt root servers
> etc), to fail to include those people in such a constituency would make the
> body far from representative of gTLD rights holders or interested parties
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 7:55 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY
> > Roger raised some valid points in his message below. A new registry
> constituency must have clear membership criteria. However, it is unfair to
> restrict membership in the gTLD constituency to those who are already
> licensed, as they would have strong incentives to limit competitive entry.
> > Fortunately, there is a simple way around this problem.
> > The new registry constituency can consist of any organization that has
> officially applied to ICANN to become a registry.
> > At this point in time, that means all those organizations that paid
> ICANN's $50,000 non-refundable application fee.
> > This is a simple, clear criterion. No one can contend that those who
> applied are not seriously committed to ICANN and to the registry business.
> > --MM
> > >>> "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com> 03/26/01 07:53 AM >>>
> > 1) While there are quite a few proposals floating around for "registry
> industry trade associations" that would include any business that considers
> itself a registry, this Constituency is an ICANN DNSO constituency, whose
> principal purpose is to provide input into the ICANN DNSO process. So,
> while the registry industry may well need and get a broad trade association,
> we did not feel that the " DNSO Constituency " was the venue for it; and
> > 2) In order to provide some meaningful boundary for the DNSO Constituency,
> accreditation is a fairly clear demarcation; beyond that, things get murky
> and fairly debatable; and
> > 3) Whereas the commitment that an organization makes to express interest
> in becoming a gTLD registry is limited, the commitment rises considerably
> > after accreditation, ensuring the full commitment of the Constituency to
> the DNSO's work.
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: email@example.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-4610Y@lyris.isoc.org
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html