Registrar Stakeholder Group/en

From ICANNWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) is an ICANN Stakeholder Group representing ICANN-accredited registrars.[1] It was first recognized by the ICANN Board on 27 May 1999. The RrSG participates in ICANN's policy-making process and also works as one of the most efficient bodies in raising the voice of the registrars within the ICANN community.[2]

The RrSG is a part of the Contracted Parties House under the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the main policymaking body for ICANN. There are three representatives that are elected to the GNSO Council from the RrSG, where they represent the views of the other members of the RrSG and vote on policy matters.[3] The members of the RrSG have regular meetings with ICANN policy, finance, and registrar and finance liaison staff, as well as with the members of registries, the government, and law enforcement agencies. Within the group, they also exchange vital information to enhance registrar services for their respective customers.[4]





  • RrSG成員:RrSG成員由支付會員費和符合要求的ICANN認可註冊商組成


  • 執行委員會:RrSG執行委員會或ExComxCo由主席、副主席、秘書和財務官組成。這四名人員管





  • GNSO理事會成員:RrSG還包括3名由註冊商利益集團選舉出的GNSO理事會成員, 代表北美、

歐洲和亞太地區 。

  • 提名委員會成員:提名委員會代表由RrSG選出,代表提名委員會。
  • 支持人員:包括秘書處、 網站管理員和法律代言人。[9]





  • MJ Keukelaar, 秘書處



Registrar Constituency Positions

On April 17, 2008, the Registrar Constituency submitted its position regarding the Board Governance Committee Working Group’s Report for Recommended GNSO Improvements, which include:

Adopting a Working Group Model

  • Supported the adoption of working group model because it promotes a participation from a broader set of constituencies and transfers the policy making work load of the council to the community.
  • Cautioned the possibility of risks wherein the working group maybe “hijacked” by a particular interest group.
  • Recommended safeguards to reduce possible risks as well as transparency in handling conflicts of interests and clear guidelines to appeal the decisions of the chairman.
  • Expressed its concern over the size of the working group, which might become larger than expected. ICANN should provide enough staff and administrative support and ICANN funding should be limited only to reasonable expenses to efficiently and productively carry out its operations.

Revising the Policy Development Project (PDP)

  • It supports the revision of the PDP in conjunction with ICANN Policy requirements.
  • The Bylaws should be amended to clear out consensus policies, which will be created only based on defined issues related to certain procedures based on ICANN contracts.
  • The PDP timeline should be dynamic for the Council to evaluate properly the time needed for every project before scheduling it.
  • It also suggested the development of procedural framework to ensure a systematic and predictable process.

Restructuring the GNSO Council

  • It supports the GNSO Council restructuring and revision of the constituency representation and voting rights plans as well as the term limits for councilors and ensuring geographic diversity of the Council members.
  • The Constituency agreed that the Council must have the authority to determine if the working group complied with the rules through a large majority. If not solutions should be undertaken.
  • Requested further clarification on the relationship between noncommercial registrants’ with ALAC as well as with the members of the former General Assembly active lists.

Enhancing Constituencies and Improving Communication and Coordination with ICANN Structures

  • It supported frequent communications among GNSO constituents with other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees.[12]