<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] updated draft letter
In the absence of further requests for changes, it can be dispatched at COB
addressed to Ray.
Thanks,
Thomas
Am 21.09.2012 um 10:39 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
> OK, thanks Thomas.
>
> Can we send the letter out today?
>
> 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: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
>
>
> Le 21 sept. 2012 à 10:31, Thomas Rickert a écrit :
>
>> Hello Stéphane,
>> we are almost there. There was just one suggestion for a change sent by
>> John, which I have copied below:
>>
>>
>> ***
>> 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
>> ***
>>
>> Since there were no objections or comments as a response to that suggestion,
>> I propose we address the letter to the Board Structural Improvements
>> Committee (SIC), that is to say to Ray Plzak as its chair. Bertrand wrote
>> that the SIC will review the proposals and therefore it should be adquate to
>> address its chair and cc Bertrand.
>>
>> The content of the letter should remain unaltered, though.
>>
>> In my note to the Council I reminded the group of the intention discussed
>> during out last call to submit the letter by the end of the week. May I
>> suggest that you dispatch it by COB today to allow for additional comments
>> until then?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> Am 21.09.2012 um 10:12 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
>>
>>> Thanks Wolf and everyone else who has responded to Thomas' call.
>>>
>>> Are we now in a position for me to send the letter as it is now drafted?
>>>
>>> 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: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 20 sept. 2012 à 22:12, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit
>>> :
>>>
>>>> The ISPCP is supporting to send out this letter
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
>>>> Auftrag von Thomas Rickert
>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. September 2012 16:30
>>>> An: GNSO Council List
>>>> Betreff: [council] updated draft letter
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> as discussed during yesterday's call, please find below the draft letter
>>>> regarding the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure including the
>>>> changes proposed by Stéphane.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide your comments and suggestions as soon as you can as the
>>>> plan is to finalize the draft by the end of next week.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards and have a great weekend,
>>>> 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;
>>>>
>>>> - the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and
>>>>
>>>> - more compliance issues that need to be taken care of.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Chair, GNSO Council
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|