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