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