<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] updated draft letter
Thanks Thomas.
Unless anyone objects violently, I plan to address the letter to both Ray and
Bertrand. After all, it was Bertrand who contacted us so it would be plain rude
IMO to bypass him in our response.
As a personal note, I have to admit to not understanding John's desire to cut
Bertrand out at all (if that's what it is - it is entirely possible I just
misunderstood).
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 15:49, Thomas Rickert a écrit :
> Stéphane,
> this was proposed to address John's concern. I had copied John's comment in
> an earlier e-mail to the list.
> Please find below an updated letter with Ray as addressee and Bertrand in cc
> (as indicated at the end of the letter).
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Ray Plzak
> Chairman of the Board Structural Improvements Committee
>
>
> Dear Ray,
>
> 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
>
>
> cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 21.09.2012 um 11:18 schrieb Stéphane Van Gelder:
>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|