Re: Re: [ga] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars
> Quite frankly, we are not registrars. And with so much of what is
> going in the domain policy arena effecting us as directly as it is, I
> think it is time the non-registrar registration service providers have
> some say and input in the process. Particularly because many of the
> things that may be acceptable to the registrars, may have a deep
> impact on our businesses and on the service provided to our customers.
> You surely see where I am going with this. I think a new constituency
> is required where non-ICANN Accredited domain registrars and
> registration providers are represented. I've been thinking about this
> for some time now, especially during the whole "domain transfer"
> controversy that Verisign started.
> I've decided that its time to do more than think about it and have
> started exploring the subject more. Anyone interested in this, and
> who is a qualified registration provider, should contact me off list.
You make some great points here William. Looking at the DNSO Constituencies,
there really is no appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier
Stakeholders. The closest that I can see are the Business and ISP
constituencies, however each of those carries specific features that may not
be desirable or appropriate in representing the interests of the ISS's. For
instance, contrast the composition (and the bylaws that support the
composition) of the Business Constituency v. the Registrar Constituency. One
has a heterogeneous membership, the other does not. The BC's mission and
supporting bylaws promote a diversity of interests and a limitation on
concentrations of interests in specific industry sectors. This would make it
very difficult for ISS's to find an effective and representative voice
there. The ISPC, on the other hand, has a much more specific mission and
engenders homogeneous participation. It is unclear however whether or not
ISS's would qualify for membership within the ISPC (see
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ispcp/ISPCP.Articles.html for more
details). It is most certainly worthwhile that someone investigate whether
or not the interests of the ISS's and those of the ISPC are compatible and
if not, whether the ISPC would be willing to accomodate an extended
membership consisting of firms that don't necessarily qualify under their
If this isn't possible, then it sounds like there is an excellent case to be
made for the creation of a new constituency that allows for effective
representation of the ISS's.
The reason that I bring this course of action up as a suggestion is because
of the processes set forth by the Names Council outlining how new
constituencies are created. A series of criteria are set forth that must be
addressed prior to the consideration of the creation of a new constituency.
Some of these criteria are;
3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the
proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly
and other parts of ICANN?
5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
recognition of a new constituency?
5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need
could be fulfilled?
7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency
taken to seek support from existing constituencies?
8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on
(the entire set of criterion can be found at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCprocedures-v4.0.html almost at the
very bottom of the document.)
It is important that all of these questions are answered effectively - some
of those above can be most effectively answered by asking the other
constituencies if the ISS have a home in the existing constituencies and, if
not, if they would support the formation of a new constituency. It may turn
out that existing structures may suit your purposes quite nicely without
having to invest the time necessary to create a completely new constituency.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html