<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18854">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">
<DIV><STRONG><SPAN class=906493408-16122009>From Board summary 9 December 2009 -
</SPAN>New GNSO Constituency Applications </STRONG></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P>The Board discussed the fact that work was continuing on one of the four new
GNSO Constituency Applications. </P>
<P>The Board then took the following action: </P>
<P><EM>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; </EM></P>
<P><EM>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; </EM></P>
<P><EM>It is <STRONG>RESOLVED </STRONG>(2009.12.09.07) that: </EM></P>
<OL style="LIST-STYLE-TYPE: decimal">
<LI>
<P><EM>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; </EM></P>
<LI>
<P><EM>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; </EM></P>
<LI>
<P><EM>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. </EM></P>
<LI>
<P><EM>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. </EM></P>
<LI>
<P><EM>The IDNgTLD Constituency petition, as presently formulated does not
appear to be focused enough to be eligible for any single Stakeholder Group,
is not </EM><EM>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. </EM></P></LI></OL></DIV></BODY></HTML>