AW: [council] Re: Berard comment on impact of new gTLDs - draft letter

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas,

I'll have collected views within the ISPCP by Wednesday. Hope that's not too 
late.


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im 
Auftrag von Thomas Rickert
Gesendet: Montag, 17. September 2012 17:52
An: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: GNSO Council List
Betreff: [council] Re: Berard comment on impact of new gTLDs - draft letter


John,
thanks for your message. I have no issue with such change.

Any other views?

Thanks,
Thomas



Am 17.09.2012 um 17:38 schrieb <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Thomas,
>
> As much as I like stirring the pot, I wonder if we can do one or two
> things to this letter than have less to do with its content, but its
> character.
>
> I know that Bertrand is a member of the Board Structural Improvements
> Committee, but I don't think that is what motivated his request. Neither
> is he on the New gTLD Committee.
>
> He is likely hoping to help solve a problem, much as he tried to do in
> Cartagena at the Council dinner even before he was seated on the Board.
> Because of that, could we address the letter to the Board overall (or
> either of its committees?) and change the opening paragraph to note the
> request from Bertrand?
>
> I hate the thought that I am getting mired in the kind of kabuki that I
> often rail about, but I am uneasy about upsetting Board comity.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Berard
> Founder
> Credible Context
> 58 West Portal Avenue, #291
> San Francisco, CA 94127
> m: 415.845.4388
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Impact of new gTLDs - draft letter
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, September 11, 2012 3:01 am
> To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> All, in preparation of this week's GNSO telco, please find below the
> draft letter in response to Bertrand de La Chapelle's request for input
> on the impact of new gTLDs. I would like to thank Brian Winterfeldt, Joy
> Liddicoat, Osvaldo Novao, Zahid Jamil, Stéphane van Gelder, Wolf-Ulrich
> Knoben and Jeff Neuman for their contributions.
>
>
> I am looking forward to discussing this with you.
>
>
> Best 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 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you,
> Stéphane van Gelder
> GNSO Chair