-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all - sharing this GNSO Council discussion and discussion starter
from Thomas Rickert.
Please let me know (by Aug 19 if possible) if you have any comments
that I can pass on
cheers
Joy


- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-gtld-dt] Kick-Off: Call for input on: "Impact of new
gTLDs on ICANN's structure"
Date: 	Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:37:06 +0200
From: 	Thomas Rickert <[log in to unmask]>
To: 	[log in to unmask]



Dear colleagues,
welcome to this mailing list and thank you for your willingness to
contribute to this important topic.

I have copied Bertrand's original message at the end of this e-mail for
your reference.

Let me propose to take an approach consisting of two phases.

In the first phase, I would like the group to establish some facts and
in the second phase we should draw conclusions from this. The reason for
that is that I am convinced that we need to write down and consider the
wishes and expectations which the existing and new players may have
before rushing into a debate about potentially changing an exisisting
structure.

Phase one:

- - Qualitative challenges
- - Quantitative challenges

Phase two:

What is the impact of the above factors on the ICANN structure, if any?


To give you an idea of what we might consider, here come some questions
/ examples:

Phase one:

Qualitative challenges:

- - What are the interests of new registries? Are they different from
those of existing registries? In what way are they different?
- - Will the interests of registrars change, will distribution channels
change?
- - Will there be enough representation of the community with the given
structure?
...

Quantitative challenges:

- - There will be a bigger community with more attendees at meetings.
- - Will ICANN be able to provide a good service to the bigger community
with existing staff?
...

In Phase two, we will then assess the identified challenges/expectations
and see whether these can be met/responded to with the given structure.
If not, we will hopefully be able to make some suggestions how they can
be addressed adequately.

I would like to invite you to provide input to the aspects of phase one
for the time being as I think we should first find out what the
challenges could be before we discuss potential consequences or actions
that should be taken by ICANN. Certainly, you are invited to respond
addressing phase two as well, if you wish.

Would you please send your initial input by August 20th? I will then
analyze it and send out the request for input for phase 2.

Thank you and best regards,
Thomas

> Dear all,
> 
> The new gTLD program will have a significant impact on the 
> functioning of ICANN and its structure. An in-depth community 
> discussion is needed to identify early the corresponding challenges
> and possible evolutions. It should be conducted while the gTLD
> program itself is being implemented, without waiting for the
> completion of this round. This should in particular be taken into
> account in the upcoming gNSO review, planned in 2013.
> 
> As you probably remember, this issue was therefore put on the 
> agenda of the various Board interactions with SOs, ACs and 
> constituencies during the Prague meeting. Several issues were 
> identified during these discussions, pertaining both to scalability
> factors (due to the number of applications) and qualitative impact
> (including the diversity of the new gTLDs and the potential
> overlapping of the constituencies they could belong to).
> 
> At the end of each such session, *Steve Crocker invited 
> participants to share a one-pager on this topic* to gather 
> preliminary views and help prepare a dedicated session in Toronto.
> 
> 
> I am writing to you as Chairs of the respective SOs, ACs, 
> Stakeholder Groups or Constituencies to renew this call for input. 
> The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), chaired by Ray 
> Plzak, will discuss the topic during the Board Workshop 
> mid-September and your perspective is eagerly sought after. The 
> contributions can be very synthetic at that stage, for instance 
> merely listing bullet points of identified potential impacts. The 
> objective is to get as complete a picture as possible of the 
> different dimensions of the issue.
> 
> I know the summer period is not the easiest to gather views in you 
> respective groups but I also understand that this has already been 
> discussed before Prague and you probably are in a position to share
> the concerns already identified, if not the possible solutions.
> This is only a preliminary stage and further consultations will
> take place to prepare the Toronto session.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your contribution, *if possible before 
> September 10*, and don't hesitate to share this call for input with
> people I might have inadvertently overlooked or you think might be
> good contributors from your group.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bertrand
> 



___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law

Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
www.anwaelte.de <http://www.anwaelte.de>

Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
www.eco.de




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQKwbyAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqNhcH/2dXtMwkymFt3z5X4oMk5iBm
oYfqQzRXUAKkEDeor93uKSeurwGpGPVwpK/Gn2E2W6Sc6ylwtZiWjDY6hQoDBRiJ
ww/jYFCsDuMJimPiUe6hAUwP5Yt8mSrM0DKrWuTaPMRZ2l7JWDNsO9cOZFm8GU6i
7sc5MEWY7ULmhdkPbqADseZ+jkHGXoKY6tXiE2KdU+MbMzIjuLxkTi1qazcqodh9
XsesbGbrP3Ni4z3awgKFD9fX9Xs3nZQQbj4HkIBNTn0OXn9qUoNYgdM731EfUwRD
Qnh6haeCKhL3Vy5f8hFzdmZWavqQ0IqcUvnx1iYgKGWOiSunrSLh9y96Wh+Sg2c=
=VuQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----