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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,
thanks for your message. That part came from a message that Joy had sent, but 
which I only received when she resent it to me offlist. This may be the reason 
why this was not discussed on the mailing list before.

I will amend accordingly.

Thanks,
Thomas



Am 10.09.2012 um 17:14 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:

> 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> 
> <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>
> Date: Thu, August 16, 2012 9:45 am
> To: "'rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> "'david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <david.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx'" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, 
> "'gnso-gtld-dt@xxxxxxxxx'" <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> 
> 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
> 
> www.hoganlovells.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: 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'; '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> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
> ___________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
>  
>