A request for action

[Harold Feld]

I was on vacation when this broke so I haven't said anything yet.

I echo Milton's process concerns.  I am troubled that the GAC failed
to avail itself of opportunities to be briefed by ICM and for
objections to made at the public meeting in July.

A request for a delay in consideration at the very end of the process
should be an extraordinary request and rarely granted.  Participants
labor through a fairly lengthy and complex process in good
faith.  Delays can have very serious consequences for parties stuck
to live in limbo.

The GAC and its participant governments have know of the .xxx
application and ongoing negotiations for some time.  Governments,
individually and through the GAC, have had ample time to consider the
matter and raise their concerns.  The various letters do not raise
new issues or explain why the time until now has proven inadequate
for governments or the GAC to provide adequate input to the Board for
an independent decision.

Similarly, I am concerned about the role of the Department of
Commerce.  It puzzles me that those who would see the specter of
unilateral action under other circumstances do not see it here.  I
recognize the problem for the Department of Commerce -- that as the
final arbiter of ICANN decisions, with power to reject an ICANN
decision or even power to deny ICANN a renewal of its contract -- has
in expressing its concerns to ICANN.  Action that would be perfectly
acceptable for another government, such as voicing a concern over a
chosen course of action, acquires different connotations when issuing
from the DoC.

For this reason, I support Milton's draft statement.  I confess I do
not put much credence in ICM's willingness to abide by a
delay.  Confronted by opposition from powerful government interests,
ICM wisely chose not to force a vote when it can hope to explain to
governments why .xxx should not raise concerns.

But ICM's business judgement should not guide our actions.  The real
question for comment is whether governments (either individually or
collectively) should have an exceptional and highly disruptive right
in ICANN processes and Board deliberations.

Harold Feld