Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we have to talk about it for the reasons Stéphane states.  Which 
admittedly is probably easier for me to say since I didn't live through it the 
last time around.

Bill

On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> LOL.
> 
> I do think it's worth discussing if there is time during our next meeting. If 
> people echo's Kristina's desire not to go anywhere near this, then that 
> discussion will be short. But .XXX is a gTLD, it is within the purview of the 
> GNSO, and the case does raise several procedural issues that I think lie at 
> the core of ICANN's function (the main one being, obviously, whether the 
> independent review panel's decisions actually mean anything).
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:54, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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. 
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
***********************************************************