[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] updated draft letter
Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu
Mary.Wong
Fri Sep 21 17:00:02 EEST 2012
For those on the last Council call, is this something you agree to? Was
there a discussion on the problem with the bifurcated houses? If not,
then the final sentences of the letter, speaking to the "resiliency" of
the GNSO, could imply that none of us wish to change that structure.
Thanks,
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>>
From:
Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
To:
St?phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
CC:
GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Date:
9/21/2012 9:51 AM
Subject:
Re: [council] updated draft letter
St?phane,
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,
St?phane van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council
cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle
Am 21.09.2012 um 11:18 schrieb St?phane Van Gelder:
Why Ray and not Bertrand?
St?phane Van Gelder
Directeur G?n?ral / 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 ? 10:39, St?phane Van Gelder a ?crit :
OK, thanks Thomas.
Can we send the letter out today?
St?phane Van Gelder
Directeur G?n?ral / 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 ? 10:31, Thomas Rickert a ?crit :
Hello St?phane,
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 St?phane 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?
St?phane Van Gelder
Directeur G?n?ral / 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 ? 22:12, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> a
?crit :
The ISPCP is supporting to send out this letter
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
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 St?phane.
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,
St?phane van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120921/c1915ddc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list