Comment re: Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .XXX sTLD

[Steve Goldstein <steve.goldstein@xxxxxxx>]

I comment as a former ICANN Board member who voted in Lisbon against awarding 
the .xxx sTLD to ICM.  My decision to vote "no" at the time was premised on 
advice given to ICANN that, were ICM to fail to police the .xxx sTLD to keep 
out child pornography, ICANN would have to step in and ensure that adequate 
protections were being applied.  Doing so would then impel ICANN into the role 
of a regulator instead of its proper role of a coordinator of the Domain Name 
System.  

Given that ICANN regularly enforces compliance among the Registrar community, I 
am not persuaded that it does not already act as a regulator of sorts.  But, 
apart from any hairsplitting over definitions, I believe that the posted 
document, "ICANN Options Following the IRP Declaration on ICM’s .XXX 
Application," befogs the key issue with dilatory procedural steps and thereby 
incurs unnecessary and potentially embarrassing delay.  

What is at stake here, plainly and simply, is whether or not ICANN will adhere 
to the accountability framework that it had set up for itself.  Prior to the 
then-Board's vote in Lisbon in 2007, ICANN had already determined that ICM's 
application for .xxx met all the basic criteria as well as all the special 
contract conditions that ICANN had imposed on the applicant.  The Independent 
Review Panel, chosen in accordance with the accountability procedures that 
ICANN itself had set up, found in the majority against ICANN.  So, what is left 
to determine fairly and objectively?  It's really time to walk the talk, ICANN. 
 

Very respectfully,

--SteveG