[NA-Discuss] Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee

[Danny Younger]

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