Re: [bc-gnso] postponement of GNSO review

["Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I’d be supportive of this. In addition to the need for a review of the various 
SOs, AC, etc., the proposal to delay, if adopted, would cause ICANN to violate 
its bylaws. The bylaws are quite clear on the timing, independence, and extent 
of the review(s) and a delay, through “bending” of the bylaws could open ICANN 
up to additional scrutiny.

I might also be tempted to suggest that a call for a delay could be indicative 
of a larger problem, that being an inability of the current organization to 
handle the breadth of activities in a timely manner. If that is the case, 
priority should be given to bylaw-mandated activities and delaying others.

On Aug 29, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Aparna Sridhar 
<aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

All,

I'd be happy to draft a quick comment encouraging the GNSO to push forward with 
review if that seems to be the consensus of the group. (It seems like there is 
some support but I can't tell from e-mails if anyone holds a contrary view.) I 
imagine it would be very short.

Cheers,

Aparna Sridhar
Policy Counsel
Google Inc.
1101 New York Avenue N.W.
Second Floor
Washington, DC 20005
tel:  202.346.1261
e-mail: aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aparnasridhar@xxxxxxxxxx>