For Discussion - Draft GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report
Dear Council Members; Based on the active email discussion prior to Thanksgiving, I have taken the liberty of creating a new draft version of the Council's required report to the Board on its plans for transitioning to the new bicameral Council structure by June 2009. I addition to using some specific text recommendations by Philip Sheppard and Chuck Gomes in the introductory section, I am hopeful that I have gotten close to capturing the spirit of the Council's discussion on this matter to date. There are a number of notable changes to which I draw your attention: 1. I added a section suggested by Philip that highlights "fundamental community principles to be followed." 2. I added a section suggested by Chuck that highlights "Council implementation priorities." 3. I streamlined the "Calendar/Deadlines" section but did not combine/integrate that section with the "Inventory of Key Processes and Implementation Decisions" section, pending a final resolution of that list and a decision by the Council on the order of priority. Consistent with your discussion during the last Council meeting, I hope this draft version will make it possible for all interested parties to edit, comment and move toward a Council agreement on the list so that a status report can be submitted to the Board by early next week. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth
Thanks Rob. To get the discussion going, I inserted some comments along with a few minor edits that are highlighted on the attached file. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:40 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] For Discussion - Draft GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report Dear Council Members; Based on the active email discussion prior to Thanksgiving, I have taken the liberty of creating a new draft version of the Council's required report to the Board on its plans for transitioning to the new bicameral Council structure by June 2009. I addition to using some specific text recommendations by Philip Sheppard and Chuck Gomes in the introductory section, I am hopeful that I have gotten close to capturing the spirit of the Council's discussion on this matter to date. There are a number of notable changes to which I draw your attention: 1. I added a section suggested by Philip that highlights "fundamental community principles to be followed." 2. I added a section suggested by Chuck that highlights "Council implementation priorities." 3. I streamlined the "Calendar/Deadlines" section but did not combine/integrate that section with the "Inventory of Key Processes and Implementation Decisions" section, pending a final resolution of that list and a decision by the Council on the order of priority. Consistent with your discussion during the last Council meeting, I hope this draft version will make it possible for all interested parties to edit, comment and move toward a Council agreement on the list so that a status report can be submitted to the Board by early next week. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth
Dear Council Members; Many thanks to Chuck Gomes for helpful feedback on the last version of the draft document. In view of the lack of comments to Chuck's feedback, I decided to circulate a further revised draft version of the GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report that incorporates some of his suggestions in hopes that the changes will make it easier for Council members to review and comment. This version leaves Chuck's previous comments in place. Thanks to Ken Bour's thoughtful contribution and formatting wizardry this draft version has converted the draft key process and implementation decision inventory into a chronological chart. The new format should make it easier for all council members to evaluate and comment on the inventory and draft chronology and allow faster and more efficient editing. In light of another comment from Chuck, I also added some edits to the Calendar section in February and March with respect to the timing for submitting new Stakeholder Group charters. All should note that the charter submission deadline will arrive sooner than you might otherwise have anticipated. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth On 12/5/08 5:19 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote: Thanks Rob. To get the discussion going, I inserted some comments along with a few minor edits that are highlighted on the attached file. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:40 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] For Discussion - Draft GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report Dear Council Members; Based on the active email discussion prior to Thanksgiving, I have taken the liberty of creating a new draft version of the Council's required report to the Board on its plans for transitioning to the new bicameral Council structure by June 2009. I addition to using some specific text recommendations by Philip Sheppard and Chuck Gomes in the introductory section, I am hopeful that I have gotten close to capturing the spirit of the Council's discussion on this matter to date. There are a number of notable changes to which I draw your attention: 1. I added a section suggested by Philip that highlights "fundamental community principles to be followed." 2. I added a section suggested by Chuck that highlights "Council implementation priorities." 3. I streamlined the "Calendar/Deadlines" section but did not combine/integrate that section with the "Inventory of Key Processes and Implementation Decisions" section, pending a final resolution of that list and a decision by the Council on the order of priority. Consistent with your discussion during the last Council meeting, I hope this draft version will make it possible for all interested parties to edit, comment and move toward a Council agreement on the list so that a status report can be submitted to the Board by early next week. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth
Rob, I was horrified to read in the otherwise excellent raft the following: "Determine form, structure and composition of implementation/transition oversight (drafting team, task force, working group, council subcommittee, etc)" Who is seriously suggesting we need even more reform teams over and above the OSC and PSC steering groups and underlying teams ? No No and thrice no. Philip
For discussion Some recent activity with new organisations seeking involvement inside the GNSO has opened up the thought that maybe the delineation of the two house we have currently proposed is too narrow. It was based on old thinking. The two houses are: a) users b) ICANN contracted parties On reflection this division into two does NOT reflect the totality of potential stakeholders. A division between: a) users b) domain name suppliers may be a better fit. The parties with no home in the proposed structure are: a) applicant registries in the new TLD process (not yet a contract with ICANN) b) resellers of domain names (with no contract with ICANN) c) sellers of registry services based on sub-domains (with no contract with ICANN) These three categories have little communality with true user interests (a safe place to communicate or do business) and much more with the contracted parties ( eg want to be a registry / shared customer base / focus on registry pricing). Should we not extend the scope of the contracted parties house to fit these sort of organisations inside if the desire is there ? Philip
Philip, Actually, this is not a new train of thought although the specific stakeholder groups you name may not have been considered directly. You will recall that ISPs were discussed as fitting into the supplier and user sides. In their first iteration, the BGC WG used the term suppliers just like you do, but it was realized that that there is a critical difference between a contracted supplier and a non-contracted supplier; hence the ultimate distinction between contracted parties and non-contracted parties (users). As far as the first party you name, 'applicant registries in the new TLD process', they certainly do have common interests with registries but until they execute a contract with ICANN, they are still on the user side. At the same time, they are welcome to participate in the RyC as active observers. As just one example, we welcomed dotBerlin to participate in the RyC as an active observer a long time ago. 'Resellers of domain names' and 'sellers of registry services based on sub-domains' also have some common interests with contracted registration service providers but they are also users of domain names. They can easily be categorized as 'commercial' or 'noncommercial' and even though they may not fit well into existing user constituencies, they might be excellent candidates for new constituencies in the applicable stakeholder groups. In my opinion, the BGC WG recommendations appropriately tried to ensure that the improved GNSO would be flexible enough to accommodate changing constituencies within all of the stakeholder groups. The current challenge for each of the four SGs is to design our structures to readily accommodate new constituencies. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 9:39 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach For discussion Some recent activity with new organisations seeking involvement inside the GNSO has opened up the thought that maybe the delineation of the two house we have currently proposed is too narrow. It was based on old thinking. The two houses are: a) users b) ICANN contracted parties On reflection this division into two does NOT reflect the totality of potential stakeholders. A division between: a) users b) domain name suppliers may be a better fit. The parties with no home in the proposed structure are: a) applicant registries in the new TLD process (not yet a contract with ICANN) b) resellers of domain names (with no contract with ICANN) c) sellers of registry services based on sub-domains (with no contract with ICANN) These three categories have little communality with true user interests (a safe place to communicate or do business) and much more with the contracted parties ( eg want to be a registry / shared customer base / focus on registry pricing). Should we not extend the scope of the contracted parties house to fit these sort of organisations inside if the desire is there ? Philip
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
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 ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:32 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach 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
At 08/12/2008 10:32 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the contract parties house (that is not a splinter group) ?
One that I would like to see, although it is not without some possible conflicts, is registrar reseller constituency. Just as a current registrar is bound by both a contacts with ICANN and with a Registry, I would like to see resellers bound by a contract with ICANN and with a Registrar. That would give ICANN direct recourse to deal with them, and make them a contracted party. Alan
Just a question: if resellers have a contract with ICANN, don¹t they then become ICANN-accredited registrars? Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager +33 1 48 01 86 17 INDOM Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris. France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 http://www.indom.com/ Daily domain name industry news: http://www.domaines.info/ Mon blog/My blog : http://www.domaines.info/ Le 08/12/08 17:19, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
At 08/12/2008 10:32 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the contract parties house (that is not a splinter group) ?
One that I would like to see, although it is not without some possible conflicts, is registrar reseller constituency.
Just as a current registrar is bound by both a contacts with ICANN and with a Registry, I would like to see resellers bound by a contract with ICANN and with a Registrar. That would give ICANN direct recourse to deal with them, and make them a contracted party.
Alan
Exactly my point Stéphane! Adrian From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2008 7:26 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach Just a question: if resellers have a contract with ICANN, don't they then become ICANN-accredited registrars? Thanks. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager +33 1 48 01 86 17 INDOM - Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris. France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 http://www.indom.com/ Daily domain name industry news: http://www.domaines.info/ Mon blog/My blog : http://www.domaines.info/ Le 08/12/08 17:19, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit : At 08/12/2008 10:32 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the contract parties house (that is not a splinter group) ? One that I would like to see, although it is not without some possible conflicts, is registrar reseller constituency. Just as a current registrar is bound by both a contacts with ICANN and with a Registry, I would like to see resellers bound by a contract with ICANN and with a Registrar. That would give ICANN direct recourse to deal with them, and make them a contracted party. Alan
Yes, sorry Adrian. I got your email just after sending mine and saw you were making the same point. Stéphane Le 08/12/08 21:29, « Adrian Kinderis » <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> a écrit :
Exactly my point Stéphane!
Adrian
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2008 7:26 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach
Just a question: if resellers have a contract with ICANN, don¹t they then become ICANN-accredited registrars?
Thanks.
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager +33 1 48 01 86 17
INDOM Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris. France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 http://www.indom.com/
Daily domain name industry news: http://www.domaines.info/ Mon blog/My blog : http://www.domaines.info/
Le 08/12/08 17:19, « Alan Greenberg » <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit : At 08/12/2008 10:32 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the contract parties house (that is not a splinter group) ?
One that I would like to see, although it is not without some possible conflicts, is registrar reseller constituency.
Just as a current registrar is bound by both a contacts with ICANN and with a Registry, I would like to see resellers bound by a contract with ICANN and with a Registrar. That would give ICANN direct recourse to deal with them, and make them a contracted party.
Alan
Alan, I disagree. In my opinion, ICANN has recourse at the Registrars level. If the reseller is out of line, the Registrar that appointed them should be held accountable. I am not keen on creating further contracted parties at this level. Adrian Kinderis From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2008 3:19 AM To: Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach At 08/12/2008 10:32 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: Can you provide an example of a new constituency for the contract parties house (that is not a splinter group) ? One that I would like to see, although it is not without some possible conflicts, is registrar reseller constituency. Just as a current registrar is bound by both a contacts with ICANN and with a Registry, I would like to see resellers bound by a contract with ICANN and with a Registrar. That would give ICANN direct recourse to deal with them, and make them a contracted party. Alan
I tend to agree with Philip. If the second house is purely restricted to parties who have contracts with ICANN, then it will never be appropriate for it admit new constituencies. Surely, this was not the intent of the BGC. Greg ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 9:38:39 AM Subject: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach For discussion Some recent activity with new organisations seeking involvement inside the GNSO has opened up the thought that maybe the delineation of the two house we have currently proposed is too narrow. It was based on old thinking. The two houses are: a) users b) ICANN contracted parties On reflection this division into two does NOT reflect the totality of potential stakeholders. A division between: a) users b) domain name suppliers may be a better fit. The parties with no home in the proposed structure are: a) applicant registries in the new TLD process (not yet a contract with ICANN) b) resellers of domain names (with no contract with ICANN) c) sellers of registry services based on sub-domains (with no contract with ICANN) These three categories have little communality with true user interests (a safe place to communicate or do business) and much more with the contracted parties ( eg want to be a registry / shared customer base / focus on registry pricing). Should we not extend the scope of the contracted parties house to fit these sort of organisations inside if the desire is there ? Philip
Greg, I agree with you that it was not the intent of the BGC WG that it would never be appropriate for contracted party SGs to admit new constituencies. As I previously pointed out in a response to Philip, a new RySG was already proposed in Cairo and the RyC in working on the RySG charter is definitely assuming that there could be new RySG constituencies and hence our charter needs to accommodate that. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ruth Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:49 AM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach I tend to agree with Philip. If the second house is purely restricted to parties who have contracts with ICANN, then it will never be appropriate for it admit new constituencies. Surely, this was not the intent of the BGC. Greg ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 9:38:39 AM Subject: [council] GNSO Council Restructuring - a wrinkle in the two houses approach For discussion Some recent activity with new organisations seeking involvement inside the GNSO has opened up the thought that maybe the delineation of the two house we have currently proposed is too narrow. It was based on old thinking. The two houses are: a) users b) ICANN contracted parties On reflection this division into two does NOT reflect the totality of potential stakeholders. A division between: a) users b) domain name suppliers may be a better fit. The parties with no home in the proposed structure are: a) applicant registries in the new TLD process (not yet a contract with ICANN) b) resellers of domain names (with no contract with ICANN) c) sellers of registry services based on sub-domains (with no contract with ICANN) These three categories have little communality with true user interests (a safe place to communicate or do business) and much more with the contracted parties ( eg want to be a registry / shared customer base / focus on registry pricing). Should we not extend the scope of the contracted parties house to fit these sort of organisations inside if the desire is there ? Philip
Thanks Philip. No intent to cause any concerns on the structure query. I included the form/structure item in the draft "key decision" list when I first circulated the "strawman" document on 15 November. No one suggested creating any more reform teams, but I thought it was important that the Council discuss and confirm the form and methodology it wanted to employ for organizing and addressing the Council transition/implementation effort. I thought Chuck's subsequent contribution (11/16) of what are now identified as items 1.a and 1.b. clarified the necessary Council decision quite well. Will eliminate or edit the item as appropriate based on further input. RobH On 12/8/08 3:44 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote: Rob, I was horrified to read in the otherwise excellent raft the following: "Determine form, structure and composition of implementation/transition oversight (drafting team, task force, working group, council subcommittee, etc)" Who is seriously suggesting we need even more reform teams over and above the OSC and PSC steering groups and underlying teams ? No No and thrice no. Philip
Hi, At this point, I believe that I should submit Philip's cover letter with Rob's staff report on the status of the work being done. This seems to be a compromise between Chuck's optimism and Philip's caution. I will not add any comment to the effect that we may now be questioning some of the reasoning behind the bifurcation that produced the proposal fr bi-cameral organization. Thanks. a. On 7 Dec 2008, at 15:19, Robert Hoggarth wrote:
Dear Council Members;
Many thanks to Chuck Gomes for helpful feedback on the last version of the draft document. In view of the lack of comments to Chuck’s feedback, I decided to circulate a further revised draft version of the GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report that incorporates some of his suggestions in hopes that the changes will make it easier for Council members to review and comment. This version leaves Chuck’s previous comments in place.
Thanks to Ken Bour’s thoughtful contribution and formatting wizardry this draft version has converted the draft key process and implementation decision inventory into a chronological chart. The new format should make it easier for all council members to evaluate and comment on the inventory and draft chronology and allow faster and more efficient editing.
In light of another comment from Chuck, I also added some edits to the Calendar section in February and March with respect to the timing for submitting new Stakeholder Group charters. All should note that the charter submission deadline will arrive sooner than you might otherwise have anticipated.
Best regards,
Rob Hoggarth
On 12/5/08 5:19 AM, "Chuck Gomes" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Rob. To get the discussion going, I inserted some comments along with a few minor edits that are highlighted on the attached file.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Robert Hoggarth Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:40 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] For Discussion - Draft GNSO Council Restructure Implementation Report
Dear Council Members;
Based on the active email discussion prior to Thanksgiving, I have taken the liberty of creating a new draft version of the Council’s required report to the Board on its plans for transitioning to the new bicameral Council structure by June 2009.
I addition to using some specific text recommendations by Philip Sheppard and Chuck Gomes in the introductory section, I am hopeful that I have gotten close to capturing the spirit of the Council’s discussion on this matter to date. There are a number of notable changes to which I draw your attention:
• I added a section suggested by Philip that highlights “fundamental community principles to be followed.” • I added a section suggested by Chuck that highlights “Council implementation priorities.” • I streamlined the “Calendar/Deadlines” section but did not combine/integrate that section with the “Inventory of Key Processes and Implementation Decisions” section, pending a final resolution of that list and a decision by the Council on the order of priority.
Consistent with your discussion during the last Council meeting, I hope this draft version will make it possible for all interested parties to edit, comment and move toward a Council agreement on the list so that a status report can be submitted to the Board by early next week.
Best regards,
Rob Hoggarth
<GNSO Council Restructuring Implementation Plan (RHv3; CGv1; KBv1)7 Dec 08.doc>
participants (8)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Greg Ruth -
Philip Sheppard -
Robert Hoggarth -
Stéphane Van Gelder