Further to our discussion during today's teleconference about the ICM Registry decision and open comment period on the ways forward (http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#icm-options-report), see also the letter replying to this from ICM - http://icann.org/correspondence/lawley-to-beckstrom-21mar10-en.pdf. The reference to .post is interesting (although I admit I have not followed that one with its five year delay). Alan
There is also video of Lawley in Nairobi, saying much the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvqhXXln1vY I am not at all familiar with the details of the case, but it would seem that the opposition missed the boat back in protesting in 2004, and then pressured ICANN into reversing its already made decision in - as determined by the review panel - violation of its own rules. It does seem there would have been ample opportunity to scuttle it then, as support within the .XXX community hardly appears universal, but nobody did. The main issue now is whether ICM can be bumped back to the drawing board. It could be done as a delaying tactic, but surely ICM would have grounds for more serious litigation. It would put a serious dent in ICANN's reputation for fairness. It would be a distraction. Just getting it out of the way would appear to be much preferable. I can see some justification in due diligence under the 2004 rules but, if as ICM claims, its circumstances are unchanged, then that should be brief. ICANN should get on with it.. If it's anyone's job to see that ICANN sticks to its commitments it's the job of At-Large. If the GAC has serious concerns, they could do worse than to try and bring At-Large round to their point of view. Joly On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Further to our discussion during today's teleconference about the ICM Registry decision and open comment period on the ways forward (http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#icm-options-report), see also the letter replying to this from ICM - http://icann.org/correspondence/lawley-to-beckstrom-21mar10-en.pdf. The reference to .post is interesting (although I admit I have not followed that one with its five year delay).
Alan
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
replying to this from ICM - http://icann.org/correspondence/lawley-to-beckstrom-21mar10-en.pdf. The reference to .post is interesting (although I admit I have not followed that one with its five year delay).
Stuart is, as usual, right on the money. The .POST domain was approved back in the 2004 round, and then was stalled for five years over niggles in contract language. As I understand it, since the UPU is is an actual international organization, part of the UN, they couldn't agree to be subject to California law, and since they are a large international bureaucracy, all of whose members are large national bureaucracies, everything happens in slow motion. A couple of months ago they finally came to terms, signed the agreement, and they're now starting up .POST. There is no credible reason to treat .POST and .XXX differently here. If one needs its application reexamined, they both do, and if one is still OK, they're both still OK. R's, John
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie