<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<ol><li style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Arial" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><b><p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; "><br></p><p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Apparently, ICANN policy staff doesn't want to say anything about the board's discussion of the so-called consumer constituency application, although I infer "work is continuing" on it. At least ICANN is consistent in its idea about "transparency" (or lack there of). The other 3 constituency applications were denied. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">From: <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm</a></span></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><b>6. New GNSO Constituency Applications</b></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial">The Board discussed the fact that work was continuing on one of the four new GNSO Constituency Applications.</font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial">The Board then took the following action:</font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>Whereas, The Board has received four formal petitions for the creation of four new GNSO Constituencies, the first formal requests for new GNSO constituencies in a decade;</i></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>Whereas, Each petition has been subjected to a two-phase, public process that was instituted as part of the GNSO Improvements effort, and Public Comment Forums for all four petitions have concluded;</i></font></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>It is </i><b><i>RESOLVED </i></b><i>(2009.12.09.07) that:</i></font></p> <ol> <li style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>The Board is pleased with the response of the community in organizing these four prospective new Constituencies and in completing the various notifications, petitions, and charter documents designed to formally seek Board recognition and approval;</i></font></li> <li style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>The Board thanks and acknowledges the work of the four Constituency proponents for their perseverance and dedication in attempting to further the evolution and representativeness of the GNSO;</i></font></li> <li style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>The Board appreciates the work done by proponents of the CyberSafety Constituency (CSC), including its most recent response to various Board member and community questions and concerns. The Board, after careful reconsideration, has determined that this petition does not satisfy the standards for a new GNSO Constituency established by the Board; thus, the petition is not approved. Those individuals, groups, and organizations who have been involved with the CyberSafety proposal are encouraged to remain active within ICANN and, where applicable, seek to join other approved Constituencies.</i></font></li> <li style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>The Board appreciates the work done by proponents of the City TLD Constituency; however, that petition is not approved on the basis that the Registries SG will be organized as a grouping of individually contracted Registries rather than as a grouping of Constituencies; as such, each City will be eligible to join the RySG once it signs a formal ICANN contract as a registry operator. In the interim, the proposed RySG Charter provides for “observer” status for any City TLD proponent interested in becoming an ICANN gTLD Registry.</i></font></li> <li style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial"><i>The IDNgTLD Constituency petition, as presently formulated does not appear to be focused enough to be eligible for any single Stakeholder Group, is not comprised solely of non-governmental entities, and apparently is not focused on gTLD policies beyond non-Latin script IDNs. The Board acknowledges and thanks the IDNgTLD Constituency petitioners for their interest and effort, and welcomes further input on the structural and membership concerns raised.</i></font></li> </ol><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px"><font face="Arial" size="4" style="font: 13.0px Arial">One Board member abstained from voting on this resolution. All remaining Board members in attendance approved of this resolution. The resolution passed.</font></p></b></span></font></li></ol><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 12px; "><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div>IP JUSTICE</div><div>Robin Gross, Executive Director</div><div>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA</div><div>p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451</div><div>w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> </div><br></body></html>