Philip,
A possible new RySG constituency was already proposed in
Cairo: City gTLDs. That would not be a splinter group because there are
any not city gTLDs that are members of the RyC. It is true though that
they would be a subset of gTLD registries who have contracts with ICANN, so if
that is what you mean by splinter group, I suppose you would still categorize
them that way.
It is also possible, although I admit that I am not aware
of any current indication of such, that ICANN could in the future contract with
other parties who provide some sort of registration services. If that ever
happened, the contracted party SGs should be able to accommodate
them.
In the case of the RySG, I can tell you that we are in the
early stages of developing the RySG charter and in that regard are discussing a
design that would accommodate new registry constituencies if they are
formed.
Chuck
Chuck, thanks for
your first thoughts on this.
My concern about
"GNSO flexibility" as you put it is that the flexibility at present is
100% in the users house!
There is zero
flexibility in the contract parties house.
In other words its
contract parties (a fixed two constituency group) and the rest of the
world in the users house.
This fits poorly
to the "birds of a feather" concept and the idea of new
constituencies.
The relationships
between users and the three types i mentioned are a direct parallel to the
contract parties.
Can you provide an
example of a new constituency for the contract parties house (that is
not a splinter group) ?
Philip