AW: [gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure"

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Thomas,

in general, I agree with your approach. I see the focus of our discussion on 
phase 1 rather than 2. And we should try to develop a council's view and not 
just a (constituency + SG + NomCom apps + Liaisons)-view.
The reason is that these groups - at least Cs and SGs shall react to Bertrands 
letter by their own and will not use the council as their mouthpiece or 
megaphone.

So we may firstly analyze the council related facts coming from the existing 
gTLD environment eg re tasks, processes, structure, decision making, 
cooperation with policy staff and other items and secondly discuss the impact 
of the new environment on those items.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Thomas Rickert
Gesendet: Dienstag, 14. August 2012 11:37
An: Gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on 
ICANN's structure"

Dear colleagues,
welcome to this mailing list and thank you for your willingness to contribute 
to this important topic.

I have copied Bertrand's original message at the end of this e-mail for your 
reference.

Let me propose to take an approach consisting of two phases.

In the first phase, I would like the group to establish some facts and in the 
second phase we should draw conclusions from this. The reason for that is that 
I am convinced that we need to write down and consider the wishes and 
expectations which the existing and new players may have before rushing into a 
debate about potentially changing an exisisting structure.

Phase one:

- Qualitative challenges
- Quantitative challenges

Phase two:

What is the impact of the above factors on the ICANN structure, if any?


To give you an idea of what we might consider, here come some questions / 
examples:

Phase one:

Qualitative challenges:

- What are the interests of new registries? Are they different from those of 
existing registries? In what way are they different?
- Will the interests of registrars change, will distribution channels change?
- Will there be enough representation of the community with the given structure?
...

Quantitative challenges:

- There will be a bigger community with more attendees at meetings.
- Will ICANN be able to provide a good service to the bigger community with 
existing staff?
...

In Phase two, we will then assess the identified challenges/expectations and 
see whether these can be met/responded to with the given structure. If not, we 
will hopefully be able to make some suggestions how they can be addressed 
adequately.

I would like to invite you to provide input to the aspects of phase one for the 
time being as I think we should first find out what the challenges could be 
before we discuss potential consequences or actions that should be taken by 
ICANN. Certainly, you are invited to respond addressing phase two as well, if 
you wish.

Would you please send your initial input by August 20th? I will then analyze it 
and send out the request for input for phase 2.

Thank you and best regards,
Thomas

Dear all,
The new gTLD program will have a significant impact on the functioning of ICANN 
and its structure. An in-depth community discussion is needed to identify early 
the corresponding challenges and possible evolutions. It should be conducted 
while the gTLD program itself is being implemented, without waiting for the 
completion of this round. This should in particular be taken into account in 
the upcoming gNSO review, planned in 2013.
As you probably remember, this issue was therefore put on the agenda of the 
various Board interactions with SOs, ACs and constituencies during the Prague 
meeting. Several issues were identified during these discussions, pertaining 
both to scalability factors (due to the number of applications) and qualitative 
impact (including the diversity of the new gTLDs and the potential overlapping 
of the constituencies they could belong to).
At the end of each such session, Steve Crocker invited participants to share a 
one-pager on this topic to gather preliminary views and help prepare a 
dedicated session in Toronto.
I am writing to you as Chairs of the respective SOs, ACs, Stakeholder Groups or 
Constituencies to renew this call for input. The Board Structural Improvements 
Committee (SIC), chaired by Ray Plzak, will discuss the topic during the Board 
Workshop mid-September and your perspective is eagerly sought after. The 
contributions can be very synthetic at that stage, for instance merely listing 
bullet points of identified potential impacts. The objective is to get as 
complete a picture as possible of the different dimensions of the issue.
I know the summer period is not the easiest to gather views in you respective 
groups but I also understand that this has already been discussed before Prague 
and you probably are in a position to share the concerns already identified, if 
not the possible solutions. This is only a preliminary stage and further 
consultations will take place to prepare the Toronto session.
Thank you in advance for your contribution, if possible before September 10, 
and don't hesitate to share this call for input with people I might have 
inadvertently overlooked or you think might be good contributors from your 
group.
Best
Bertrand



___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law

Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de>

Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
www.eco.de