RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO

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

To be clear, my reluctance has nothing to do with the TLD itself.  I have 
nightmarish visions of the proverbial slippery slope where Council becomes 
bombarded with requests for comment and/or intervention on a multitude of 
issues.  Even if such requests came only from owners of new gTLD applications 
that fail, it's still a potentially big pool.  
 
Mary, if you're suggesting that this may be an opportunity for Council to issue 
a statement on when it will (or will not) comment, I'm all for it.
 
K
 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
        Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:50 PM
        To: GNSO Council
        Subject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
        
        
        I agree and also for the reasons outlined by Stephane. Personally I 
think it probably not something the Council as a whole should comment on, but 
it'd be remiss of us not to at least discuss it, with a view toward figuring 
out whether or not there ought to be just such a public statement on our part.
         
        Thanks,
        Mary
         
        Mary W S Wong
        Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
        Franklin Pierce Law Center
        Two White Street
        Concord, NH 03301
        USA
        Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Phone: 1-603-513-5143
        Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
        Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network 
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584


        >>> 
From:   William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>      
To:      GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
Date:   4/14/2010 11:16 AM      
Subject:        Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO     
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 
<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
***********************************************************