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

[joy <joy@xxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

thanks for starting this discussion,
These are my personal thoughts (I've sent the discussion starter to
the NCSG list and am awaiting comments) and i am sure you will tell me
if they are off-target .....
Perhaps one challenge will be dealing with the impact of a plethora of
new constituences and new stakeholder groups (some genuinely new, som
re-configurations and alignments of existing) across both contracted
and non-contracted parties in the current GNSO council structure.
Questions include: how will these impact on the democratic,
participatory processes of Council? Is there a way for Council
processes to remain democratic and fair without growing exponentially
to reflect these new constituencies (or to be expected change every
time new/significant ones appear or new impacts of newgTLDs appear)?
Definitely echo Jeff on the impact on volunteers as well.

Joy

On 17/08/2012 4:45 a.m., Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 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… J
>> 
>> 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>
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQLWAFAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqghIIAKNU3yBD9+DD1GdZAniuT+9p
Q/1ACgKrN/3ZoIqf3n/hpjmNc0/bB6NxJXHpzKuLVVKwsB/zICHEOreuEjBc/GmG
ULll9KxwtS7wJ1TikpeiVIDJfpAdQZtwftc2+MUxvPXYribP2KnKO9uohCYeE8cK
1xKpvC/gmLsnhnj2g2CCslmpiCi39yDZxl+irOHEbmkk38pt1KUNGFTyJ3MV4eqf
r7VDpci6pGqCVlAwUOnM82tn+TQUZ3HB1ZGFT0FK2AEdv9nve4v9QKJYEX1Qupa3
meyHxLknn+x9bn7DeCTK445dY8h+RBhzCKqJCeW1iLDceM5nuYjm0nU+u2QW+DE=
=0A6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----