RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition
Note the following paragraphs from the RySG charter: "A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. The RySG will provide for observer status for entities that may not be eligible for full membership because of the preceding paragraph, and for entities that have applied, or indicated an intention to apply, for a contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs." Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:18 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Me too. But they'd better hurry. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:33:16 +1100 To: Alan Greenberg<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; Council GNSO<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Nope. I'll just try and wait for someone to stop me. Adrian Kinderis From: alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca [mailto:alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:15 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Can you point to where the Bylaws (or anything else) say that? Alan At 10/11/2010 08:53 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Right. So you can be a member of each. Just not a voting member. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [ mailto:cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> ] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:47 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: RE: (SCL > 6): [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition I believe the revised Bylaws GNSO provisions require that someone may not vote in more than one SG or Constituency. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:42 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: Re: (SCL > 6): [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition The old Bylaws said that an organization could be a member of more than one Constituency. I would have sworn that the new Bylaws explicitly said that you could not participate in multiple SG and had to choose, but I cannot find that clause there. Is there a rule in either SG charter about multiple memberships?? Alan At 10/11/2010 02:18 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Wow! http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm So what happens to the Contracted Party house? Did they think of that? ;) Adrian Kinderis
Thanks Chuck for pointing this out. I'm curious to know how "affiliate" is defined, if it has been defined? I guess it must be narrow, as Verisign is 'affiliated' with NetChoice as it is a member of that trade organization. NetChoice is a voting member of the BC. Same with Network Solutions, which is (or at least recently was) a member of USCIB, another voting member of the BC. I believe some registries and registrars are probably also members of IPC voting members such as INTA and AIPLA. So, is there a definition of 'affiliate'? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:50 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; Adrian Kinderis; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Note the following paragraphs from the RySG charter: "A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. The RySG will provide for observer status for entities that may not be eligible for full membership because of the preceding paragraph, and for entities that have applied, or indicated an intention to apply, for a contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs." Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:18 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Me too. But they'd better hurry. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law _____ From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:33:16 +1100 To: Alan Greenberg<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; Council GNSO<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Nope. I'll just try and wait for someone to stop me. Adrian Kinderis From: alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca [mailto:alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:15 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Can you point to where the Bylaws (or anything else) say that? Alan At 10/11/2010 08:53 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Right. So you can be a member of each. Just not a voting member. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [ <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:47 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: RE: (SCL > 6): [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition I believe the revised Bylaws GNSO provisions require that someone may not vote in more than one SG or Constituency. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:42 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: Re: (SCL > 6): [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition The old Bylaws said that an organization could be a member of more than one Constituency. I would have sworn that the new Bylaws explicitly said that you could not participate in multiple SG and had to choose, but I cannot find that clause there. Is there a rule in either SG charter about multiple memberships?? Alan At 10/11/2010 02:18 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Wow! http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm So what happens to the Contracted Party house? Did they think of that? ;) Adrian Kinderis
Interesting questions Mike. You're an attorney. Is it common from a legal point of view to refer to an association for which a company is a member as an affiliate? Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:47 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Thanks Chuck for pointing this out. I'm curious to know how "affiliate" is defined, if it has been defined? I guess it must be narrow, as Verisign is 'affiliated' with NetChoice as it is a member of that trade organization. NetChoice is a voting member of the BC. Same with Network Solutions, which is (or at least recently was) a member of USCIB, another voting member of the BC. I believe some registries and registrars are probably also members of IPC voting members such as INTA and AIPLA. So, is there a definition of 'affiliate'? Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 5:50 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com; Adrian Kinderis; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Note the following paragraphs from the RySG charter: "A Registry that is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership with, or affiliated with any entity that votes in another stakeholder group in either house of the GNSO is not eligible for membership in the RySG. Any question regarding eligibility or exceptions shall be determined by a vote of the RySG. The RySG will provide for observer status for entities that may not be eligible for full membership because of the preceding paragraph, and for entities that have applied, or indicated an intention to apply, for a contract with ICANN to provide gTLD registry services in support of one or more gTLDs." Chuck From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:18 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; Alan Greenberg; Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Me too. But they'd better hurry. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh Law ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:33:16 +1100 To: Alan Greenberg<alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Gomes, Chuck<cgomes@verisign.com>; Council GNSO<council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Nope. I'll just try and wait for someone to stop me. Adrian Kinderis From: alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca [mailto:alan.greenberg@sympatico.ca] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:15 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition Can you point to where the Bylaws (or anything else) say that? Alan At 10/11/2010 08:53 PM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Right. So you can be a member of each. Just not a voting member. Adrian Kinderis From: Gomes, Chuck [ mailto:cgomes@verisign.com <mailto:cgomes@verisign.com> ] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:47 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: RE: (SCL > 6): [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition I believe the revised Bylaws GNSO provisions require that someone may not vote in more than one SG or Constituency. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:42 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Subject: Re: (SCL > 6): [council] ICANN Board Votes to Enhance New gTLDs Competition The old Bylaws said that an organization could be a member of more than one Constituency. I would have sworn that the new Bylaws explicitly said that you could not participate in multiple SG and had to choose, but I cannot find that clause there. Is there a rule in either SG charter about multiple memberships?? Alan At 10/11/2010 02:18 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote: Wow! http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09nov10-en.htm So what happens to the Contracted Party house? Did they think of that? ;) Adrian Kinderis
participants (2)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh