Summary

After comprehensive review, Board voted not to approve three petitions to create new GNSO Constituencies, and did not take action on a fourth.

Text

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;

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.

Implementation Actions

  • Inform applicants of Board action.
    • Responsible entity:  ICANN Staff
    • Due Date:  December 2009
    • Implementation Date:  December 2009

Other Related Resolutions

Additional Information

  • No additional funding provided.

Explanatory text does not modify or override Resolutions.  See Board Resolutions Page for more information.

Note: The "Add Comment" box below is for sharing information about implementation of this resolution. Off-topic comments will be removed.