Difference between revisions of "Contracted Party House"
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
== Criticism of the CPH == | == Criticism of the CPH == | ||
| − | + | In April, 2011, [[Avri Doria]], in a post on [[CircleID]], criticized the CPH for its lack of transparency and accountability, as called for by the [[ICANN Bylaws]] and its [[Multistakeholder Model]]. Registries argue that their contract is between themselves and ICANN, which should not include the medley of public opinion and comment. Their concern is that this external commentary affects their direct bargain and that it limits their say in their regulation, which will affect the Commercial as well as Non-Commercial users of the DNS in particular, and the ICANN community in general.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against_icann_multistakeholder circleid.com]</ref> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 21:38, 26 August 2011
The Contracted Parties House (CPH) is one of the two major structures making up the GNSO, with the other being the Non-Contracted Parties House. The CPH consists of the Registry Stakeholder Group and the Registrar Stakeholder Group.[1]
GNSO Council
Six representatives from the Contracted Parties House are appointed to the GNSO Council, plus one Voting NCA. Three representatives are drawn from the Registry Stakeholder Group, and three from the Registrar Stakeholder Group.
Vice Chair
- Jeff Neuman, North American region, Decemeber 2010 - Annual Meeting 2012
Registry Stakeholder Group
- Jeff Neuman, North American region, Decemeber 2010 - Annual Meeting 2012
- Jonathan Robinson, European region, term ends after Annual Meeting 2011 (ICANN Dakar)
- Ching Chiao, Asia/Pacific region, December 2010 - Annual Meeting 2012
Registrar Stakeholder Group
- Tim Ruiz, North American region
- Stephane Van Gelder, Europe, term ends after 2012 Annual Meeting (GNSO Council Chair)
- Adrian Kinderis, Asia Pacific region[2]
Criticism of the CPH
In April, 2011, Avri Doria, in a post on CircleID, criticized the CPH for its lack of transparency and accountability, as called for by the ICANN Bylaws and its Multistakeholder Model. Registries argue that their contract is between themselves and ICANN, which should not include the medley of public opinion and comment. Their concern is that this external commentary affects their direct bargain and that it limits their say in their regulation, which will affect the Commercial as well as Non-Commercial users of the DNS in particular, and the ICANN community in general.[3]
References