[council] ICM registry request for GNSO

Rosette, Kristina krosette at cov.com
Thu Apr 15 20:56:08 UTC 2010

To be clear, my reluctance has nothing to do with the TLD itself.  I have nightmarish visions of the proverbial slippery slope where Council becomes bombarded with requests for comment and/or intervention on a multitude of issues.  Even if such requests came only from owners of new gTLD applications that fail, it's still a potentially big pool.  
Mary, if you're suggesting that this may be an opportunity for Council to issue a statement on when it will (or will not) comment, I'm all for it.


	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
	Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:50 PM
	To: GNSO Council
	Subject: Re: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO
	I agree and also for the reasons outlined by Stephane. Personally I think it probably not something the Council as a whole should comment on, but it'd be remiss of us not to at least discuss it, with a view toward figuring out whether or not there ought to be just such a public statement on our part.
	Mary W S Wong
	Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
	Franklin Pierce Law Center
	Two White Street
	Concord, NH 03301
	Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
	Phone: 1-603-513-5143
	Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
	Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

From: 	William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>	
To:	 GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>	
Date: 	4/14/2010 11:16 AM	
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. 


On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:


	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).

	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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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.


				From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
				Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:46 AM
				To: GNSO Council
				Subject: [council] ICM registry request for GNSO 

				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.



				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 at graduateinstitute.ch

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100415/ba9f614a/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list