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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Not sure there is disagreement on identifying the challenges. Let's focus on 
the challenges to the Council itself and the policy process rather than the 
challenges to the Registry or Registrar stakeholder groups (or the other SGs / 
Constituencies).

So, what are those challenges in people's minds. I confess that I am not sure 
there are that many that are introduced by the new gtld process that don't 
otherwise exist. One of the challenges we face as a council is that we are 
circumvented in policy making. Although exacerbated during the new gtld 
process, I am not sure it relates to the new gtlds per se.

Another challenge is volunteer fatigue and the huge workload. Perhaps adding 
the additional new gtlds will help.

A further challenge is dealing with the large influx of new entities showing up 
at icann meetings and on conference calls. Do we have the appropriate 
infrastructure in place?

These are just a few. Please pile on.





From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:51 AM
To: Taylor, David <David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Neuman, Jeff; 
'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"

All,
thanks for all your feedback. It is good to get the discussion going.

Rest assured I agree that the questions / aspects that Stéphane and David 
mentioned are the ones that we should discuss. However, I would find it 
difficult to discuss this without establishing some facts beforehand. Only if 
we know what the challenges are, we can then say something about the need, if 
any, to change representation, voting structures etc.. These aspects would fit 
into what I called phase 2, i.e. the conclusions :-).

May I ask all of us to concentrate on substance now rather than procedure? :-) 
I made a proposal to structure our discussion (and I still think it can be used 
without conflicting with the suggestions to focus on Council matters only) and 
I think it is a good and valuable exchange of thoughts to specify what we 
perceive our mandate to be.

I guess we are now ready to collect input on the request itself.

Thomas



Am 15.08.2012 um 19:47 schrieb Taylor, David:

Hello All

I would certainly agree with the need to consider how the GNSO Council should 
be (re)structured and the number of Councillors, representation and voting 
structures once the new gTLDs are delegated.  It would also be nice if we keep 
it as simple as possible… ☺

David

Dr. David Taylor

Partner

________________________________
Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP
6 avenue Kléber
75116 Paris

Tel:

+33 1 53 67 47 47

Fax:

+33 1 53 67 47 48

Email:

david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



www.hoganlovells.com<http://www.hoganlovells.com/>

________________________________





From: owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: 15 August 2012 19:39
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>'; 
'gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: Re: [gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs 
on ICANN's structure"

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<mailto: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<http://anwaelte.de>]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 07:44 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
<gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf 
Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:37 AM
To: Gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://www.anwaelte.de/>

Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
www.eco.de<http://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<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.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<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de<http://www.anwaelte.de>