<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17023" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space">
<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> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[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></BODY></HTML>