ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO


I will add it to the agenda.  Not sure how much time we will have but it will 
be on there.
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
        Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:12 AM
        To: GNSO Council
        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
        ***********************************************************
        
        




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>