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. 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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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
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.
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.
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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
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.
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@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 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@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
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. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@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@graduateinstitute.ch> To:GNSO Council <council@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. 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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. Chuck From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 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. 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@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
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. K ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@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@graduateinstitute.ch> To: GNSO Council <council@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. 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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 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@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
William Drake