Re: [council] updated draft letter

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why Ray and not Bertrand?

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 10:39, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>