Reply to Peter Dengate-Thrush (copied to the NARALO): Peter, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I share your view of the importance of feeding timely advice into the policy-making and coordinating processes handled via the Supporting Organizations; this is precisely what Advisory Committees are supposed to do. I’m further appreciative of your assessment that an Advisory Body whose sole focus is upon the needs of the general registrant community "may be a useful development", and I will be happy to work with those on the GA and NARALO lists that have already endorsed this concept to see it carefully distinguished per the guidelines that you have tendered. It is my expectation that a more formal proposal will be put forth in advance of the Paris session that will clarify for the board the extent of the interests that are not being properly served by the current structure. With regard to your query on the topic of registrar contracts, I look forward to the self-regulatory activities that will be pursued by the registrar community and believe that the guidance offered by such an AC will doubtless facilitate work in the SO community to buttress that self-regulatory effort through the consensus policy process. Understanding that an Advisory Committee is, per the bylaws, a creation of the board, it would have been presumptive and inappropriate to act to self-form such a group, but I am willing to work with others to clarify the AC’s likely future membership and its goals in much the same manner that the earlier At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) facilitated the emergence of the ALAC; additionally, per your request a clear cost benefit analysis will of course be provided. As bottom-up momentum is already developing with regard to this proposal, it is my expectation that the clarity of purpose you seek will soon emerge in upcoming discussions. Thank you for sharing your views. I look forward to further discussions as needed. best wishes, Danny 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ