I can agree with the general thrust of Christopher's arguments here. And I believe that there is indeed evidence now available we can draw on for action. Certainly and by whatever margin it is enlarged, the gTLD space shall impose a greater burden on ICANN Compliance. As of now and even coming on significant improvements, several practical indicators suggest Compliance yet struggles on task. The emerging consensus appears to be that as it is now constituted, the ICANN Compliance practice is not fit to purpose. And relief is unlikely in current context. In fact, it is more likely to deteriorate with addition of an even more onerous workload from new gTLDs. The fundamental problem is one of philosophy driving the practice. We are on record demanding a new philosophy of compliance that would drive the work and practice of ICANN Compliance. The trending data gave some hope for awhile. However, in light of several definitive public avowals from ICANN staff, including one at Prague, it now appears that change is hostage to an ascendant - [ICANN corporate] - philosophy which says ICANN is not a regulator AND does not perform a regulatory role in the domain name system space. For some of us, this declaration compels a negation of the evidence of your own two lying eyes! And then, to suspend belief. Ye olde Daffy Duck routine; that thar duck be a chicken! Put the kerfuffle re budget-neutral gTLD ops in the same category as above. We are called to connive at error, altogether defying reason and good commonsense. A new philosophy for compliance could likely be nurtured by bold organizational changes in ICANN corporate. We are not alone here; the WHOIS RT Report recommended it and the ALAC endorsed. I can also see an increased role for Cross Community Working Groups (CCWGs) in policy development. This will likely mean a rethink - or more likely, a nuanced modulation - of GNSO sensibilities. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:

FYI (re-sent since it was bounced from ALAC-Announce)

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ALAC-Announce] Fwd: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure" Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:32:28 +0200 From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org, COS Wallonie <cos@wallonie-isoc.org>

Dear Olivier:

Bertrand's questions are no doubt relevant and timely, although I foresee difficulties in At Large responding constructively until much more information is available. Although there are numbers of new TLD applications on the table, there are so many thresholds and hurdles to be crossed, that one really does not yet know what the new environment is going to look like. In particular, the presence, or not, of new IDN and public interest TLDs will influence the At Large perceptions.

According to the ICANN-announced scenario, the main change might become a radical restructuring of the GNSO, because numbers of established Registrars might turn up as proto-Registries. To be confirmed when the evaluation processes have been undertaken.

Abstracting for the moment from my longstanding opposition to this development on grounds of competition policy, one could imagine that this change in the internal dynamic of GNSO might interfere with the normal functioning of the bottom up PDP and other decision making procedures.

Accordingly, At Large - and for that matter, NCUC - may encounter opportunities to give the ICANN community and Board clear advice on the management of the expanded DNS, in the face of some confusion and delay pertaining in the GNSO.

At Large may also wish to keep an eye on the budgetary aspects of the new situation. On the one hand ICANN has declared that the new TLD programme will be budget-neutral (whence the exorbitant fees) but on the other hand the successful creation of numbers of successful new TLDs might have a permanent influence on the ICANN budget, in which case the allocation of additional budgetary resources could become an issue for At Large. (Personally, I am inclined to discount this aspect because I gather that the aggregate domain name market - excluding IDN - is not growing fast enough to accommodate large numbers of successful new gTLDs at this time.)

In short, it is not a good idea to introduce a new TLD - let alone several - in the midst of a global recession.

Just a few thoughts, to start the discussion.

Regards

Christopher.

PS: I shall add a copy of these comments to the Wiki page in the near future.

On 03 Aug 2012, at 23:39, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:

...

Dear colleagues,

During the Prague meeting, several Board members have asked ICANN communities to think about the impact of the new gTLDs on the overall ICANN Structure.

Below is an email from Bertrand de la Chapelle detailing such enquiry.

Comments are welcome from the whole community. Please add your comments at the bottom of the WIKI page created on: https://community.icann.org/x/XAUeAg

The ExCom will summarise in order to provide a single input from At- Large.

*At-Large Comments open*: 3 August 2012

*At-Large Comments close*: 3 September 2012

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Call for input on: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:24:46 +0200 From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle@gmail.com> To: CC:

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

-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net <

http://www.internetjurisdiction.net

...

...

) Member, ICANN Board of Directors

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")

_______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce

At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)