I agree that ICANN's mutal agreement with ICM Registry to submit this particular question to a particular mutally-agreed arbitration body, under particular mutually-agreed procedural rules, is a significant step. But it does not constitute an independent review in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. It does not fulfill ICANN's continuing obligation to implement its independent review Bylaws by designating an independent review provider and adopting procedures for independent review -- not on an ad hoc basis, not by mutual agreement after secret negotiations with a single party, and not by secret ex parte negotiations with a prospective arbitration provider while independent review requests are already pending, but through a policy development process conforming with the procedural rules for policy decisions in ICANN's Bylaws. ICANN has shown that it is sometimes willing, when it is dealing with a commercial issue rather than one of principle, and a commercial opponent with deep pockets, to agree to submit certain questions to arbitration. Now it needs to move beyond that step to adopt policies for independent review in accordance with its Bylaws, and to deal with the backlog of independent review requests pre-dating ICM registry's arbitration request.