[council] ICM registry request for GNSO

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Councillors,

Chuck and I were recently contacted by ICM Registry CEO Stuart Lawley. Stuart 
asked us if the GNSO Council might be willing to make a comment on the ICM 
process options (the comment period for that being currently underway).

In response, I suggested that Stuart send us a draft of what kind of comment he 
would like to ask the Council to make, so that we could all at least consider 
it. Chuck explained to Stuart that the GNSO Council does not frequently make 
comments on behalf of the GNSO in response to ICANN comment periods, part of 
the reason for that being the difficulty we sometimes have in reaching 
consensus on such comments within the timeframe of an ICANN comment period.

Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council action 
following his request.

You will find below the exact transcript of the text that Stuart sent us to 
forward to the Council in response to my suggestion. The idea being that if 
Council is interested in discussing this, then the text may serve as a starting 
point for that discussion.

Thanks,

Stéphane



We would ask the GNSo , or indeed and of its members, to consider commenting to 
ICANN during the Public Comment Period that runs until May 10 on the Possible 
Process Options for ICM as outlined in the ICANN announcement 
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm.

Regardless of the nature of the sTLD we feel this is a watershed moment for 
ICANN in terms of its Transparency and Accountability and would like the 
Council to consider submitting a comment/statement along the lines of

The GNSO urges ICANN to implement the findings of the Independent Review Panel 
in ICM Registry v. ICANN without delay by finalizing a registry agreement with 
ICM based on the rules established for the sTLD applications submitted in 
March, 2004. 

The merits of the .xxx top level domain are no longer on the table:  rather, 
the only question now before the ICANN Board is whether or not it is prepared 
to respect the findings of a panel of independent judges in accordance with a 
procedure established by the ICANN bylaws.  Those findings are:

1.  That the ICANN Board determined on 1 June 2005 that the ICM Registry 
application met the criteria established for the sTLD round opened on December 
15, 2003;

2. The Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the 
application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy.

3.  That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry; 
and

Those findings are clear, and the path forward is plain:  The ICM Registry’s 
application was submitted under the rules established by the Board for the sTLD 
round based on extensive community input.  Having determined that the ICM 
application satisfied the eligibility criteria established for that round, all 
that remains is for ICANN to negotiate a contract with ICM Registry based on 
the contractual arrangements adopted for that round. 

Most of  the “options” provided by staff for responding to the IRP declaration 
would apply new rules to ICM Registry.  There is no principled basis for this 
approach, which would only compound the violations already identified in the 
IRP declaration.  The Board should reject those options, respect the judgment 
of the Independent Review panel, and provide tangible proof of its willingness 
to be accountable to the community it serves.