Preliminary Board Minutes on GNSO Constituency Applications

[Robin Gross]

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.

From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm

6.  New GNSO Constituency Applications

The Board discussed the fact that work was continuing on one of the  
four new GNSO Constituency Applications.

The Board then took the following action:

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;

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;

It is RESOLVED (2009.12.09.07) that:

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;
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;
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.
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.
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.
One Board member abstained from voting on this resolution. All  
remaining Board members in attendance approved of this resolution.  
The resolution passed.




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20091215/2ce73573/attachment.html>