<<<
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
>>>
|