<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">LOL.<div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>Stéphane<br>
<br><div><div>Le 14 avr. 2010 à 15:54, Rosette, Kristina a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="504165413-14042010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">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. </font></span></div><br>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" lang="en-us" dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Gomes,
Chuck<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:52 AM<br><b>To:</b> Stéphane
Van Gelder; GNSO Council<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [council] ICM registry request
for GNSO <br></font><br></div>
<div></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="653215113-14042010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">If anyone would like to discuss this in our 21 April
meeting, please say so and I will add it under Any Other
Business.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="653215113-14042010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="653215113-14042010"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">Chuck</font></span></div><br>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" lang="en-us" dir="ltr" align="left">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stéphane Van
Gelder<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM<br><b>To:</b> GNSO
Council<br><b>Subject:</b> [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>Councillors,
<div><br></div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Neither of us indicated to Stuart that there would be any GNSO Council
action following his request.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Stéphane</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#4961ff">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 </font><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#4961ff">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm</font></a><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#4961ff">.<br><br>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<br><br>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. <br><br>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:<br><br>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;<br><br>2. The
Boards reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the
application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy.<br><br>3.
That ICANN should have proceeded to negotiate a contract with ICM
Registry; and<br><br>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. <br><br>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. </font></div></blockquote></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>