Hi On Dec 19, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Bill, You are raising an interesting point. There are two parts in a registry: the policy manager and the operator. My view is that the operator belongs to the registry constituency, while the policy manager belongs to whatever constituency or group it would naturally fit. However, this is not the current approach of ICANN, therefore we could have such conflicts. You do remember the discussions about the GNSO review. In that circumstance I tried to explain my concept of stakeholder group as a system where we could expand participation and widen the points of view and contributions. I made the example of a company where the legal department could contribute to the IP constituency, the research department to a possible technical research constituency, the marketing department to the business constituency, and so on, enriching the global contribution to the ICANN policy making process.
So now we're disaggregating organizations to fit the boxes? Even though the departments are part of a unified entity/mission? I dunno…you're a more postmodern thinker than I, I guess.
If this approach is taken, there will be no problem in accepting the application. Otherwise, we need to have the opinion of the General Counsel about the potential conflict of interest.
Well certainly in GNSO land and for the board the question of where these applicants go is a bit vexing and will require some clear guidelines. I never heard At Large mentioned as an option, so this presents an interesting test to think about. On Dec 19, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Thanks for your questions and comments, Bill. Having a closer look at their application form and the website, you will see that dotHIV is a non-for profit association as well promoting sensitisation, networking and inclusion of those target groups. They work with other relevant groups in the field but are specialized on Internet issues. According to their application form (and what I discussed with Carolin Silbernagl, the person in-charge), what you call a "TLD operator" is a small side initiative of their activities. Actually, they applied as a non-profit association in a non-commercial capacity -- otherwise your comments would be applicable.
It's not obvious to me why their non-profit status matters. From an ICANN standpoint, they are applicants to operate a gTLD, that's why they're here. This is a good one to chew on, might be worth taking the discussion to a broader level… Bill