Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Ross Rader wrote:
I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all types) are a highly important component of this. Personally, I would like to see a registrants' advisory board made up of those subsets of all constituencies (business, noncomm, at-large) that has an interest in protecting registrant's rights. Since these groups are already part of official constituencies I see this as an advsory board that would work with those constituency groups to help forumlate registrant-friendly policy.
For the same reasons, I don't see identification of registrants as a new separate constituency to be a good idea.
I believe the current registrant constituencies should be dissolved and picked up under the new "registrant"/"user" split. As it currently stands, the commercial user community in the form of the BC/ISPC/IPC wields way too much power in the GNSO structure. There is also a smaller, but important, over-allotment to the registry and registrar constituencies. Both of these over-allotments (I believe) more rightly belong in the hands of the individual registrants and individual users - neither of which have any real representative voice in the GNSO process right now. Taking some "voice" away from the existing constituencies and re-apportioning it to a mostly new set of constituencies is, in my opinion, the only real way to create a proper and lasting balance in the structure. From what you are describing, the registrant advisory board sounds remarkably similar to the contracted registrant constituency that I am proposing. But what is missing from this is the other half of the equation - the users, which also need a seat at the table. /ross