[council] IPC statement on GNSO Reform

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Avri,
I would appreciate it if you would read this statement.
1. The  IPC was disappointed by some aspects of the final report of the
Board Governance Committee WG re GNSO reform. IPC had provided extensive
comments on the draft report in November, which included our reasons why
consideration of the drastic restructuring of the Council proposed by
the draft report should be postponed until after a number of other
recommendations had been implemented. We also made some specific
suggestions regarding alternatives to the re-structuring proposed in the
draft report. The final report, issued just before this meeting began,
does not provide any indication that these views were considered. Of
course we will continue to review the final report and plan to provide
comments on it. 
2. Here in New Delhi there have been a number of discussions with our
colleagues in other constituencies concerning preparation of an
alternative proposal to the Council restructuring proposal in the BGC-WG
final report. We intend to continue these discussions on an intensive
basis with the goal of joining in a comprehensive and concrete proposal
in the near future and prior to the Paris meeting. The "tripartite"
proposal put forward by a member of the business constituency will be
given serious consideration in that process, although we have already
identified some concerns with it. We plan to contribute our own ideas to
this process.
3. The issue of the extent to which ICANN is fulfilling the often-stated
goal of private sector leadership in the management of the domain name
and addressing system will be a topic of considerable discussion in the
context of the mid-term review of the Joint Project Agreement by the
Department of Commerce. Review of the Board Governance Committee's
proposed restructuring will - quite properly -- take place in that
context. That proposal is widely viewed as diminishing the role of the
private sector interests in the ICANN process, at least those private
sector interests that may be greatly affected by ICANN decisions but
that are not dependent upon ICANN (through contractual relationships) as
the basis for their business. We hope that the Board, in considering the
BGC proposal and any alternatives, will take that perspective seriously,
and that its ultimate decision will concretely demonstrate its
commitment to the concept of private sector leadership. 

Thanks.
Best,
K