[bc-gnso] Board rejects 3 of the 4 new constituencies

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

>From Board summary 9 December 2009 - 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: 

1.      
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; 

2.      
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; 

3.      
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. 

4.      
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. 

5.      
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.