> Quite frankly, we are not registrars. And with so much of what is > going in the domain policy arena effecting us as directly as it is, I > think it is time the non-registrar registration service providers have > some say and input in the process. Particularly because many of the > things that may be acceptable to the registrars, may have a deep > impact on our businesses and on the service provided to our customers. > > You surely see where I am going with this. I think a new constituency > is required where non-ICANN Accredited domain registrars and > registration providers are represented. I've been thinking about this > for some time now, especially during the whole "domain transfer" > controversy that Verisign started. > > I've decided that its time to do more than think about it and have > started exploring the subject more. Anyone interested in this, and > who is a qualified registration provider, should contact me off list.
You make some great points here William. Looking at the DNSO Constituencies, there really is no appropriate home for the Intermediate Supplier Stakeholders. The closest that I can see are the Business and ISP constituencies, however each of those carries specific features that may not be desirable or appropriate in representing the interests of the ISS's. For instance, contrast the composition (and the bylaws that support the composition) of the Business Constituency v. the Registrar Constituency. One has a heterogeneous membership, the other does not. The BC's mission and supporting bylaws promote a diversity of interests and a limitation on concentrations of interests in specific industry sectors. This would make it very difficult for ISS's to find an effective and representative voice there. The ISPC, on the other hand, has a much more specific mission and engenders homogeneous participation. It is unclear however whether or not ISS's would qualify for membership within the ISPC (see http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ispcp/ISPCP.Articles.html for more details). It is most certainly worthwhile that someone investigate whether or not the interests of the ISS's and those of the ISPC are compatible and if not, whether the ISPC would be willing to accomodate an extended membership consisting of firms that don't necessarily qualify under their current bylaws. If this isn't possible, then it sounds like there is an excellent case to be made for the creation of a new constituency that allows for effective representation of the ISS's. The reason that I bring this course of action up as a suggestion is because of the processes set forth by the Names Council outlining how new constituencies are created. A series of criteria are set forth that must be addressed prior to the consideration of the creation of a new constituency. Some of these criteria are; 3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the proposed new constituency and existing constituencies, the General Assembly and other parts of ICANN? 5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides recognition of a new constituency? 5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could be fulfilled? 7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to seek support from existing constituencies? 8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing constituencies? (the entire set of criterion can be found at http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020117.NCprocedures-v4.0.html almost at the very bottom of the document.) It is important that all of these questions are answered effectively - some of those above can be most effectively answered by asking the other constituencies if the ISS have a home in the existing constituencies and, if not, if they would support the formation of a new constituency. It may turn out that existing structures may suit your purposes quite nicely without having to invest the time necessary to create a completely new constituency. -rwr
