RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO

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

My only interest in discussing would be to say that I don't want to touch this 
topic with a 10-foot-pole, but I suspect that's not what you had in mind. 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:52 AM
        To: Stéphane Van Gelder; GNSO Council
        Subject: RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO 
        
        
        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.