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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello all. I fully agree with Jeff's comments. I would also point out that our 
approach here should not be around what Bertrand wants and what we perceive him 
to want. What we should be concentrating on is what is best for the GNSO 
Council. I actually believe that is what Bertrand has asked anyway, but in any 
case, for an exercise this crucial, I would suggest that we do not allow 
ourselves to be dictated to by the Board.

That having been said, I would humbly suggest to this group that one approach 
it might want to take is to look at how it feels the GNSO Council should be 
structured (e.g. number of Councillors, representation, voting structures, 
etc…) when the new gTLDs are with us.

Hope that helps,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 15 août 2012 à 14:42, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Thomas,
> 
> We need to focus on the impact if any on the Council's activities and 
> potentially on our processes. Each SG and constituency will be responding on 
> its own challenges separately. In fact, the RySG did submit its one pager to 
> the ICANN Board on August 8th. When I am at my computer later tonight, I will 
> find a copy.
> 
> I believe we can use your format to brainstorm on challenges to the council 
> itself, but not focus on the individual groups. And frankly I am not sure 
> there will be any, but that is what we should think through.
>  
> From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 07:44 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff 
> Cc: gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Subject: Re: [gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs 
> on ICANN's structure" 
>  
> Jeff,
> thanks for your response. 
> 
> My understanding is that Bertrand would like everyone to present their ideas 
> / views on ICANN as a whole. It is certainly up to the Council to focus on 
> certain aspects. 
> 
> Just to be clear, I was not suggesting in any way that the individual groups 
> do not have a resilient structure, but gathering facts on what the challenges 
> are is - in my view - imperative to start an informed discussion. Even 
> assuming the individual groups can handle the challenges, where should new 
> players entering the scene find their home, e.g. a big brand applicant 
> running a registry and its own registrar. 
> 
> I am more than happy for you to propose a different approach, but I think 
> that we should structure our discussion a bit. You may also wish to provide 
> input on the aspects that you deem appropriate for us to handle and we take 
> that as a basis. 
> 
> Best,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> Am 15.08.2012 um 05:37 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:
> 
>> Thomas,
>> 
>> Thanks for kicking this off.  As you know, the registries stakeholder group 
>> has been considering the challenges for several years now and believes that 
>> it has adequately addressed the challenges (at least as much as we can) in 
>> advance of any TLDs being awarded.  We also believe it is a resilient 
>> structure that will stand the challenges presented for the next several 
>> years.
>>  
>> I actually do not believe the path you want us to head down is the 
>> appropriate path. We, as a council, should not be focusing on whether the 
>> RySG (or even the RrSG) is able to handle the challenges, but rather whether 
>> we as a council (and as a community) can handle the changes ahead.  The 
>> inner workings of any particular stakeholder group or constituency should be 
>> handled by that particular stakeholder group or constituency.  Comments can 
>> be provided on proposed structures by any other group, but in the end, the 
>> position previously taken by the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the 
>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (and their respective constituencies) is 
>> that the inner workings of those groups are between them and the ICANN Board 
>> (who gets input by the community).  We expect that the precedent set in the 
>> last few years on this be followed through this exercise.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> 
>>  
>> From: owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:37 AM
>> To: Gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [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
>> 
>> Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
>> www.eco.de
>> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
> Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
> Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
> HRB 9262, AG Bonn
> 
> Büro / Office Bonn:
> Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0
> 
> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
> Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
> 
> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
> 
> mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
> skype-id: trickert
> web: www.anwaelte.de
>