RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If anyone would like to discuss this in our 21 April meeting, please say so and 
I will add it under Any Other Business.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
        Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM
        To: GNSO Council
        Subject: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO 
        
        
        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 
<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.