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

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

Thomas,

While I believe there will be more requests for additional constituencies, 
interest groups, etc., I do not want to state that we agree that new SGs and 
Stakeholder Groups will need to be formed.  It is possible we may need new 
constituencies, but I am not ready to concede any of those points.  So in that 
sentence, we can say:

In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies and new 
stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be re-configurations or 
alignments of existing groups.

Other than that, I am fine with moving this draft to the Council.

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2012 6:51 AM
To: Thomas Rickert
Cc: gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs 
on ICANN's structure"

Thanks Thomas and the group for your work on this so far.

As a reminder, the current draft agenda for our Sept 13 meeting includes an 
update on your work, which is scheduled to be given by Thomas. So having the 
draft letter sent to the Council list a day before would be most useful and I'm 
sure the rest of the Council will appreciate that.

Thanks again.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM NetNames France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
NetNames
T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +22 (0)1 48 01 83 61

Le 8 sept. 2012 à 19:33, Thomas Rickert a écrit :


Dear all,
thank you for your contributions to the list on this subject. I have 
amalgamated the feedback you provided in a draft letter and added a few 
thoughts that I would like to send to the Council list on Tuesday 12.00 CET in 
preparation of our next Council call on Wednesday.

We have not yet covered concrete impact on questions such as the number of 
councillors or voting schemes etc.
Also, I guess we need to discuss the issue of some of the new players being 
eligible to participate in various groups. For example, some dotBrands will be 
able to join the Registries, Registrars, the IPC and the BC. While they can 
only vote in one group, this may still have some impact on their influence. 
Some of these entities could arrange to be voting in different groups and 
thereby one group of stakeholders can be influential in several groups more 
than now. I am not sure whether we should mention this here, but I guess it 
would make sense to include that in our discussions. One might think of a 
prescribed allocation of groups where you can vote, such as: If you are 
eligible to join A, B and C, you can participate in all, but only vote in A. If 
you are eligible for B or C, you can participate in all, but only vote in B.

Just food for thought.

Thanks and regards,
Thomas


Dear Bertrand,
the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide 
feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's 
structure.

As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies have been 
discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has also been a topic 
during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council and the Board and GAC as 
well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have already or will respond to the Board 
directly and our impression is that they are confident to have taken 
appropriate steps to address the upcoming challenges.

As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be quantitative and 
qualitative challenges. What these will be and their size can hardly be 
predicted.

In qualitative terms, there will likely be new constituencies and new 
stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which will be genuinely new and some 
of which will be re-configurations and alignments of existing groups. Since 
this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and participatory 
process of the Council and the response to that are yet to be seen. However, we 
would like to highlight that ICANN is already publishing information on how to 
participate (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including 
information on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes 
are available to be inclusive.

In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects. For 
sure, there will be
- more attention by the general pubic and Governments;
- more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the venues;
- more groups that need administrative and technical support;
- more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote 
participation;
- more documents to be produced and read;
- more decisions to be made and operationalized;
- more contractors that need to be managed;
- an increased budget to be administered;
- more compliance issues that need to be taken care of;
to name but a few areas of growth.

While ICANN should have sufficient funds to meet these challenges, growth needs 
to be managed carefully. More staff and other operational resources will be 
needed to support the community and fulfill ICANN's mission while preserving 
operational excellence.

These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN can 
prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased burden on 
volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex material to work 
on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should be designed to best 
possibly avoid volunteer fatigue.
The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place and 
role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only lead to 
marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known.

In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is resilient 
to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides the resources 
required to accommodate an increasing number of participants / stakeholders and 
their respective needs.

Am 28.08.2012 um 19:03 schrieb Thomas Rickert:


All,
anyone else who wishes to contribute?

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 17.08.2012 um 18:34 schrieb 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:


All,

I know that each individual constituency (I am participating in the work
of the BC, for example) has taken up the request from the Chair as has
the GNSO Council.  From our -- the Council's -- particular angle, I
agree most with those who have pointed out the potential conflict
between new players who want to participate immediately and the map of
the "on ramp" ICANN has spent a long time designing.

To that point, I would encourage the wider distribution of and a
brighter light on the road to effective and meaningful participation.
Here is the link: http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm

I know it is weak to fall back on process, but unless ICANN is going to
be remade -- from the ground up -- it will be necessary for new people
and companies to quickly understand the methods.

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new
gTLDs on ICANN's structure"
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, August 16, 2012 9:45 am
To: "'rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"'david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
<david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>'" 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>,
"'gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx>'" 
<gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>

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<mailto:David.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>; Neuman, 
Jeff;
'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"


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]
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]
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>

___________________________________________________________
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/>