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

[Laura Covington <lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yahoo supports as well.


Laura Covington
VP, Intellectual Property Policy
Yahoo! Inc.
lhc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
408.349.5187

From: "stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<stephvg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:16 AM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> list" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW: BC comment on Postponing GNSO 
Review

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<http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant<http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>
LinkedIn: 
fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/>

Le 4 sept. 2013 à 14:56, Steve DelBianco 
<sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm>)  
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<http://www.bizconst.org/charter.htm>) 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.