Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO

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

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.