FYI, here is Peter's response, which didn't show up (presumably) because he is a non-subscriber. ------- Forwarded Message From: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@chambers.gen.nz> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Cc: twomey@icann.org, ga@gnso.icann.org, At-Large Worldwide <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:46:27 +1300 Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee Hello Danny, On 18/02/2008, at 8:59 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Peter,
I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies.
The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and operational review cycle has been to ensure that the ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and timely advice from members of the community on vexing issues that require an organizational response.
Actually, I don't agree that this is the overarching goal; the board does not seek advice from members of the community in this fashion, nor for that purpose. The policy making and coordinating, which is our major function, is done via the SO's. The board's interest in that "timely advice" is in seeing that it is fed into the policy-making processes, which, as you know, we do not want to be happening at the Board.
While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the general registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities.
What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds support and drive the ICANN process.
This may be a useful development. I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups ( Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group,necessarily a subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure?
Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory Committee. The registrant community needs a strong advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued focus on general registrant issues.
I assume that you are limiting this interest group to registrants of some, or possibly all gTLDs? You will know that ccTLD registrants rights are not a matter for the ICANN board. And, I assume, the smaller chartered TLDs like .museum are not going to require this group. Nor can I see much intersection with the registrants of .asia or .eu. I wonder if your real focus should be the registrar contracts? The real way forward, as you know, is not for a letter to the board with an idea, but to set about self forming such a group, to clarify its membership, and goals. A clear cost benefit analysis is also required - what precisely is the harm that this is intended to remedy? This is the bottom-up process which characterized the formation of the existing constituencies Once this has some momentum from the ground-up, with greater clarity of purpose, we could look at it further. Regards Peter
You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a contribution.
best regards, Danny Younger
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Peter Dengate Thrush barrister@chambers.gen.nz ------- End of Forwarded Message