Re: [bc-gnso] FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO Review

[stephvg@xxxxxxxxx]

SVGC supports the text as presented and the slight deviation from our 
charter-mandated review period as outlined by Steve in the email below.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/

Le 4 sept. 2013 à 14:56, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> BC members — 
> 
> On last Thursday's call, I did not press for a BC comment on ICANN's plan to 
> postpone GNSO review. (link)  This comment period closes 6-Sep and we have 
> several other pressing policy matters, so I encouraged BC members to comment 
> individually.
> 
> Right after the call, Aparna circulated a draft comment similar to what 
> Google already filed.  Bill Smith offered the Bylaws point, several others 
> agreed, and we now have the below text circulating (including the Phil 
> Corwin's edit to the second point.)
> 
> The BC ExCom has authorized a 3-day review period for this comment, since the 
> comment period closes 6-Sep.  This is noted as an "extraordinary" departure 
> from the 14 day review required in our present Charter, and is justified by 
> the limited time remaining in the comment period. 
> 
> If more than 10% of members object to the comment below, our Charter (link) 
> requires that we have a poll and/or discussion to determine whether there is 
> majority support, and requires a quorum of half of members.     
> 
> If you OBJECT to the text below, please REPLY ALL and indicate reason you are 
> objecting.  Please know that IF you suggest changes to the text, we have to 
> ask members to re-review the changed text, which will likely take us past the 
> 6-Sep deadline.
> 
> --Steve
> 
> Text for Approval:
> 
> As business users of the Internet, we depend upon its stability, security, 
> resiliency, and interoperability in order to conduct commerce online. An 
> effective Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) plays a critical role 
> in ensuring thatICANN can support the stability, security, resiliency, and 
> interoperability of the Internet. As such, ICANN's bylaws require that a 
> periodic review of theperformance of each supporting organization, including 
> the GNSO, be conducted every five years.
> 
> The GNSO review required in ICANN's bylaws should not be postponed, for three 
> principal reasons:
> 
>> First, the timeline for the GNSO review is mandated by ICANN's bylaws. The 
>> bylaws should be carefully considered, respected, and amended as necessary. 
>> Ignoring or temporarily suspending compliance with the bylaws suggests that 
>> ad hoc processes are appropriate, undermining the community's confidence in 
>> its key structural documents.
>> 
>> Second, much has changed since the last GNSO review. More people than ever 
>> before rely on the Internet as a platform for innovation and commerce; 
>> indeed, the Internet has become an indispensable platform for many 
>> businesses.  The new gTLD program has blurred the lines between the discrete 
>> “silo” constituencies and bifurcated houses (contracted and non-) reflected 
>> in that last GNSO review and restructuring, making it more imperative that a 
>> review process be started sooner rather than later.  Thus, the actions of 
>> the GNSO impact vastly more constituents than they did in 2006, when the 
>> last GNSO review was commenced.
>> 
>> Third, the review has historically taken many years to implement. Given that 
>> we may face yet another lengthy review process, we encourage the Board and 
>> the GNSO community to avoid further delays in commencing the current round.
>> 
>  Accordingly, the Business Constituency urges that the Structural 
> Improvements Committee commence the GNSO review without delay. Doing so will 
> both strengthen confidence in ICANN's bylaws and allow the GNSO community to 
> consider the impact of changes that have occurred since 2006.
> 
>  
> 
> 
>>