14,326
edits
Changes
no edit summary
ICANN collaborates with companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds meetings three times a year, switching the international location for each meeting; one of these serves as the annual general meeting when the new [[ICANN Board]] members take their seats.<ref>[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]</ref>
ICANN collaborates with companies, individuals, and governments to ensure the continued success of the Internet. It holds meetings three times a year, switching the international location for each meeting; one of these serves as the annual general meeting when the new [[ICANN Board]] members take their seats.<ref>[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]</ref>
==Organization & Structure==
==Organization & Structure==
===Meetings===
===Meetings===
: ''Main article: [[ICANN Meetings]]''
ICANN holds week-long meetings 3 times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual meeting, where new board directors take their appointed seats. These meetings are held in a different location each time, with each global region hosting a meeting before the regional cycle is started anew.<ref>[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]</ref> The next meeting will be the 41st meeting in Singapore. The 41st meeting was scheduled to be held in Amman, Jordan, before it was moved due to security concerns.<ref>[http://www.domainnamenews.com/icann-policy/icann-meeting-june-moved-jordan/8809 DNN.com]</ref> Singapore was then selected to host that meeting.<ref>[http://www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=13838 Goldstein Report.com]</ref>
ICANN holds week-long meetings 3 times per year; one of these meetings serves as the organization's annual meeting, where new board directors take their appointed seats. These meetings are held in a different location each time, with each global region hosting a meeting before the regional cycle is started anew.<ref>[http://meetings.icann.org/about ICANN About Meetings]</ref> The next meeting will be the 41st meeting in Singapore. The 41st meeting was scheduled to be held in Amman, Jordan, before it was moved due to security concerns.<ref>[http://www.domainnamenews.com/icann-policy/icann-meeting-june-moved-jordan/8809 DNN.com]</ref> Singapore was then selected to host that meeting.<ref>[http://www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=13838 Goldstein Report.com]</ref>
A fellowship program is in place to bring in individuals who have a desire or need to attend but do not have the financial backing to attend on their own.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ Fellowship Program]</ref>
A fellowship program is in place to bring in individuals who have a desire or need to attend but do not have the financial backing to attend on their own.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ Fellowship Program]</ref>
==ICANN 2.0==
==History==
===The Beginning===
On July 1st, 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the management of the [[DNS]], which had heretofore been managed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ([[DARPA]]), the National Science Foundation ([[NSF]]) and other U.S. research agencies.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm NTIA Green Paper]</ref> The goal was to open the Internet to greater international participation, and to bolster it as a new medium of commercial competition and exchange.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref>
On July 2nd, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] requested public input regarding [[DNS]] administration and structure, policy input regarding new registrars and the creation of new [[TLD]]s, and concerns regarding trademarks. More than 1,500 pages of comments were received.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm NTIA]</ref>
In January, 1998, an agency of the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] ([[NTIA]]) issued what has become known as the "[[Green Paper]]." The document was a proposal which made clear that the agency intended to empower a non-profit entity to take control of the Internet and its [[DNS]] system.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/white-paper-05jun98.htm ICANN White Paper]</ref> The proposal drew criticism from some American lawmakers and other concerned individuals who saw the American-fostered Internet about to be handed over to a Swiss entity.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00800.html ICANN Green Paper v. White Paper correspondence]</ref> The revised "[[White Paper]]" addressed some of those concerns but still posited the need for an Internet organization which could respect and foster stability, competition, bottom-up coordination, and international representation, while also establishing appropriate protocol and administrative mechanisms.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/principles.html Harvard Law Document]</ref> The "[[White Paper]]" did not clarify all of the divisive issues but instead called for the proposed entity to utilize its self-governance to decide on the issues at hand itself.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/icann-current/msg00800.html ICANN Greev v. White Paper correspondence]</ref> The White Paper spurned the creation of the [[International Forum on the White Paper]], which involved the creation and meeting of four globally regional forums, and brought together some 1,000 Internet stakeholders. The IFWP did not create any specific proposal in response to NTIA's White Paper, but it did create a valuable body of thought and laid the foundations for future Internet governance and multi-stakeholder conferences and organizations.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/bosgrp/submission-letter.html Letter from Boston Working Group to Ira Magaziner, ntia.doc.gov]</ref>
====The Memorandum of Understanding====
On November 25th, 1998, The U.S. [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and ICANN entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ([[MoU]]),<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN MoU]</ref> which officially recognized ICANN as the entity that would:
a. Establish policy for and direct the allocation of IP number blocks;
b. Oversee the operation of the authoritative root server system;
c. Oversee the policy for determining the circumstances under which new [[TLD]]s would be added to the root system;
d. Coordinate the assignment of other Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; and
e. Oversee other activities necessary to coordinate the specified [[DNS]] management functions, as agreed by the Department of Commerce and ICANN.
Once again, these responsibilities would be undertaken and guided by the principles of stability, competition, private bottom-up coordination, and representation.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref> The agreement established ICANN as an entity that would encourage transparency in its dealings and would create ample room for appeals for any binding decisions it would make. The Department of Commerce later noted that it was comfortable ceding its control to ICANN, as it seemed like the best step towards true privatization while still binding the authority of the institution to the American policies found within the [[MoU]].<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing]</ref> The original agreement was set with an expiration of September 30th, 2000.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm ICANN DOC MoU]</ref> The [[MoU]] has been amended several times.
====Initial Issues====
ICANN was immediately faced with two pressing, opposing issues: the task of reigning in [[cybersquatting]] by creating policies necessary to protect recognized trademarks, and conversely the need to expand the number of entities accredited to function as [[registrar]]s. Following the release of the [[White Paper]], [[WIPO]] began its own research into how to protect trademarks and intellectual property within the changing [[DNS]]. A congressional hearing some 7 months after the empowerment of ICANN recognized the steps that the new entity had already taken to protect intellectual property, recognized the headway WIPO had made in creating further proposals, and called on intellectual property owners to become involved in ICANN.<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>
WIPO's report, submitted to ICANN at their 1999 meeting in Berlin, supported the [[Whois]] system, but also recommended that, should the [[Whois]] system fail to provide adequate contact information for the trademark holder to contact the domain name holder, the [[registrar]] should be obliged to rectify the situation by canceling the domain name holder's rights to the name. ICANN immediately took steps to develop the nascent [[Whois]] system.
The report also made recommendations regarding the process of accrediting new registrars, called for the creation of a concrete dispute resolution process for intellectual property issues within the [[DNS]], and also recommended that the creation of any new [[gTLD]]s should proceed slowly and with caution. These recommendations precipitated ICANN's [[Accreditation Guidelines]], the creation of the [[UDRP]], and the continued debate over how and when to increase the number of [[gTLD]]s.<ref>[http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63594.000/hju63594_0f.htm Congressional Hearing, July 1999]</ref>
=====Registrar Accreditation=====
A month before the [[MoU]] officially recognized ICANN, the [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and [[NSI]] amended their cooperative agreement. The agreement had previously maintained the [[NSI]] as the only registrar for the [[.com]], [[.org]], and [[.net]] domains.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm accreditation history]</ref> The three amendments to the agreement removed the exclusive rights of NSI; amendment 11 called for the creation of a [[SRS|Shared Registry System]], whereby an unlimited number of competitive registrars would have access to one system managed by NSI.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/docnsi100698.htm NTIA Amendment 11]</ref> Amendment 12 gave more time to NSI to complete important milestones in the liberalization of registry services; the final phase, which called for equal access to the [[SRS]] by all accredited [[Registrar|registrars]], was now given a deadline of about one year, October 25th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm NTIA Amendment 12]</ref> Amendment 13 attached a $9 fee for each [[SLD|second level domain]] name registered, payable as $18 for new registrations and $9 per year on the anniversary of the original registration.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amendment13.htm NTIA Amendment 13]</ref>
On February 8th, 1999, ICANN posted its Draft Guidelines for [[Registrar]] Accreditation for public commentary.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref> The guidelines were formed through consultation with the [[DOC]] and [[NSI]], and further tailored after the session of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.mail-archive.com/list@ifwp.org/msg01253.html Mail Archive]</ref> Some issues raised during the period of public commentary include: concerns regarding the inherent bureaucracy, inadequate protections for intellectual property, and the reasoning behind accrediting registrars before the [[DNSO]] was constituted.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/singapore-0399/archive/scribe.html Harvard Law Singapore Document]</ref> The ICANN board accepted the revised [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement|Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]] at their March, 1999 meeting in Singapore.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref>
The initial policy called for [[Registrar|registrars]] to provide secure access to the [[Registry|registry]], be operationally capable of handling significant registration volume, maintain electronic transaction records, handle and provide prompt service to [[SLD]] requests, provide security, handle seamless transfers of customers who desire to switch registrars, employ an adequately sized staff, and have measures in place to protect the interests of their customers should the registrar fail. The registrar would also have to demonstrate that it had a sufficient liability insurance policy and store of liquid assets. A concern over creating and maintaining a valid registry service is evidenced in the requirement that information regarding each registrant of a [[SLD]] would have to be submitted by the registrar to [[NSI]] for inclusion in its registry. Providing a searchable [[Whois]] service was also required. Application fees for those applying to be included in the Phase 1 testbed cost $2,500, the general application fee was $1,000. Annual accreditation fees, amounting to $5,000, would also be assessed.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy]</ref>
The [[Registration Accreditation Agreement]] was unanimously amended by the ICANN board in May, 2009.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accrediation History]</ref>
=====The Testbed Period=====
Numerous technical problems plagued the testbed period of the [[SRS]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum]</ref> The aforementioned Amendment 12 established the testbed period as Phase 1 of the deployment of the SRS, and set a start date of April 26th, 1999, and an end date of June 25th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/amend12.htm Amendment 12]</ref> [[Register.com]] finally became the first of the 5 competitive [[Testbed Registrars|testbed registrars]] to successfully implement its interface with the SRS, which happened 6 weeks into the 2 month testbed period. The technical difficulties also extended to the deployment of the required [[Whois]] system.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/update-14jun99.htm Andrew McLaughlin Memorandum]</ref> Throughout the testbed period general applications for the later phases were being accepted.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-history.htm ICANN Accreditation History]</ref> The [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] and the [[NSI]] extended the testbed period about 4 times,<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/briefingbook/milestones.html</ref> the final extension finally expired on November 5th, 1999.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/nsi/factsheet.htm Fact Sheet on Tentative Agreements among ICANN, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc.]</ref>
=====UDRP=====
On September 29th, 1999, ICANN posted the [[UDRP|Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy]] for public comments. The process aimed to address problems arising from [[cybersquatting]] and protect intellectual property rights. This process was not solely a concern or product of ICANN,given [[WIPO]]'s earlier, and continued, effort on the [[UDRP]]. The policy asserts that it will transfer, delete, or asses other changes to any domain name held by a [[Domainer|domainer]] which:
'''1.''' Is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
'''2.''' The domainer no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
'''3.''' The domain name in question has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-policy-29sept99.htm ICANN UDRP Policy]</ref>
The same day, ICANN also issued the [http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for the UDRP], which set forth the procedure for filing and responding to complaints. This was also open for a period of public commentary.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-rules-29sept99.htm Rules for the UDRP]]</ref> Some of the public comments can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/maillist.html here].
ICANN adopted the [[UDRP]] at its November, 1999, meeting in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/udrp/overview.html Harvard Law UDRP Overview]</ref>
===ICANN 2.0===
ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to revision of its [[ICANN Bylaws|bylaws]] and the introduction of new entities and policies. One such rush of changes happened in and around the year 2000, when the prospective changes and the discussions surrounding them spurned people to talk of "ICANN 2.0".<ref>[http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue3/froomkin.pdf "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"]</ref>
ICANN's bottom-up focus and its periodic structural reviews lead to revision of its [[ICANN Bylaws|bylaws]] and the introduction of new entities and policies. One such rush of changes happened in and around the year 2000, when the prospective changes and the discussions surrounding them spurned people to talk of "ICANN 2.0".<ref>[http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v36-issue3/froomkin.pdf "ICANN 2.0 Meet the New Boss"]</ref>
===The Introduction of the ALAC===
====The Introduction of the ALAC====
One of the discussions and propositions which was involved in the debate surrounding "ICANN 2.0" was the introduction of a body which could represent individual Internet users.<ref>[http://www.caslon.com.au/icannprofile1.htm Caslon.com]</ref> This became known as the At-Large Committee, or [[ALAC]], and while it was finally introduced through amendments to the bylaws in 2002, it had been a hot topic for debate for years.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ ICANN ALAC]</ref>
One of the discussions and propositions which was involved in the debate surrounding "ICANN 2.0" was the introduction of a body which could represent individual Internet users.<ref>[http://www.caslon.com.au/icannprofile1.htm Caslon.com]</ref> This became known as the At-Large Committee, or [[ALAC]], and while it was finally introduced through amendments to the bylaws in 2002, it had been a hot topic for debate for years.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ ICANN ALAC]</ref>
===Other Committees===
====Other Committees====
Many of the other new developments at ICANN were accomplished through the introduction of review teams; such as the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. Other Committees intent on expanding and specializing the role of ICANN were also created, such as the Security Committee, which eventually became the [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]]. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN.org]</ref> The push for reform was also significantly aided by [[Stuart Lynn]]'s "President's report: The Case for Reform,"<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm ICANN.org]</ref> which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Bucharest]]</ref>
Many of the other new developments at ICANN were accomplished through the introduction of review teams; such as the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform. Other Committees intent on expanding and specializing the role of ICANN were also created, such as the Security Committee, which eventually became the [[SSAC|Security and Stability Advisory Committee]]. Both of these committees were given official recognition in 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#EvolutionandReformCommittee ICANN.org]</ref> The push for reform was also significantly aided by [[Stuart Lynn]]'s "President's report: The Case for Reform,"<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm ICANN.org]</ref> which they credited for starting the dialogue on reform and leading to the creation of the more formal committee.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28jun02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Bucharest]]</ref>
ICANN adopted a new set of by-laws, which were first laid out by the aforementioned Evolution and Reform Committee, before being revised in response to Public Forums. Those by-laws can be read [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm here]. The by-laws not only more clearly defined ICANN's mission and core values, but it also put in place and improved apparatuses for review and greater transparency. The [[Reconsideration Committee]], [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], and the [[Ombudsman]] all were strengthened as a part of this move towards a more transparent organization that is able to defend its actions and decisions.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm ICANN.org]</ref>
ICANN adopted a new set of by-laws, which were first laid out by the aforementioned Evolution and Reform Committee, before being revised in response to Public Forums. Those by-laws can be read [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm here]. The by-laws not only more clearly defined ICANN's mission and core values, but it also put in place and improved apparatuses for review and greater transparency. The [[Reconsideration Committee]], [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]], and the [[Ombudsman]] all were strengthened as a part of this move towards a more transparent organization that is able to defend its actions and decisions.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-appa-31oct02.htm ICANN.org]</ref>
===Further Developments===
====Further Developments====
* [[IDN Committee]] is established, 2001.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-10sep01.htm#01.94 ICANN.org]</ref>
* [[IDN Committee]] is established, 2001.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-10sep01.htm#01.94 ICANN.org]</ref>
* The approval of [[LACNIC]] as a [[RIR]], 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31oct02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Shanghai]</ref>
* The approval of [[LACNIC]] as a [[RIR]], 2002.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31oct02.htm#EvolutionandReform ICANN Shanghai]</ref>
* [[AfriNIC]] provisionally recognized as a [[RIR]], 2004; officially recognized, 2005.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14mar05.htm ICANN.org Announcements]</ref>
* [[AfriNIC]] provisionally recognized as a [[RIR]], 2004; officially recognized, 2005.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14mar05.htm ICANN.org Announcements]</ref>
==New gTLDs==
==Recent Developments==
===New gTLDs===
: ''Main article: [[gTLD]]''
: ''Main article: [[gTLD]]''
The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|Generic Top-Level Domains]] has been around since the inception of ICANN; there was no set number fixed, and the fact that the [[.com]] extension has long been the most widely used and recognizable top-level domain was encouraged by ICANN's slow policy development process. It was underwritten in the 2001 amendments to their [[MoU]] with the U.S.' [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] that ICANN was to "collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm NTIA.doc.gov]</ref>
The discussion of creating new [[gTLD|Generic Top-Level Domains]] has been around since the inception of ICANN; there was no set number fixed, and the fact that the [[.com]] extension has long been the most widely used and recognizable top-level domain was encouraged by ICANN's slow policy development process. It was underwritten in the 2001 amendments to their [[MoU]] with the U.S.' [[DOC|Department of Commerce]] that ICANN was to "collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs".<ref>[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm NTIA.doc.gov]</ref>
In 2003, important new [[sTLD]]s began being proposed. While these domains are different from [[gTLD]]s in that they are sponsored by a given constituency, this can be seen as another way in which the wider community was pressing for a greater variety of domain space. Applications came from [[.asia]], [[.xxx]], [[.net]], [[.cat]], [[.mobi]], [[.jobs]], and [[.travel]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index-2005.html 2005 Board Meetings]</ref>; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial [[.xxx]],<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ ICANN.org]</ref> which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at [[ICANN 40]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]</ref>
In 2003, important new [[sTLD]]s began being proposed. While these domains are different from [[gTLD]]s in that they are sponsored by a given constituency, this can be seen as another way in which the wider community was pressing for a greater variety of domain space. Applications came from [[.asia]], [[.xxx]], [[.net]], [[.cat]], [[.mobi]], [[.jobs]], and [[.travel]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index-2005.html 2005 Board Meetings]</ref>; they all went on to approval in 2005-2006, except for the controversial [[.xxx]],<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ ICANN.org]</ref> which went through a much more contentious and drawn out process but was still approved in March, 2011 at [[ICANN 40]].<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/ .XXX Registry Agreement]</ref>
===New gTLD Program===
====New gTLD Program====
: ''Main article: [[New gTLD Program]]''
: ''Main article: [[New gTLD Program]]''
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] in connection with the introduction of new [[gTLD]]s was developed by the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO), which lasted from 2005 until 2007. During the Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all the constituencies within the ICANN global internet community. In 2008, 19 Specific Policy Recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board for the implementation of new gTLDs, which describe the specifics of allocation and the contractual conditions. ICANN involved the global internet community in an open, inclusive and transparent implementation process to comment, review and provide their input toward creating the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs. The protection of intellectual property, community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability were addressed during the process. Different versions and multiple drafts of the Applicant Guidebook were released in 2008. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched a New gTLD Program and at the same time approved the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> They announced the possibility of another version of the Guidebook in January 2012, the current version is the 8th, but there is little chance that there would be more than clarification in the new version, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
After the results of the 2000 and 2003 expansion of new gTLDs, a [[PDP|Policy Development Process]] in connection with the introduction of new [[gTLD]]s was developed by the [[Generic Names Supporting Organization]] (GNSO), which lasted from 2005 until 2007. During the Policy Development Process, the GNSO conducted extensive and detailed consultations with all the constituencies within the ICANN global internet community. In 2008, 19 Specific Policy Recommendations were adopted by the ICANN Board for the implementation of new gTLDs, which describe the specifics of allocation and the contractual conditions. ICANN involved the global internet community in an open, inclusive and transparent implementation process to comment, review and provide their input toward creating the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs. The protection of intellectual property, community interests, consumer protection, and DNS stability were addressed during the process. Different versions and multiple drafts of the Applicant Guidebook were released in 2008. By June 2011, the ICANN Board launched a New gTLD Program and at the same time approved the [[New gTLD Applicant Guidebook]].<ref>[http://newgtlds.icann.org/about/program About the New gTLD Program]</ref> They announced the possibility of another version of the Guidebook in January 2012, the current version is the 8th, but there is little chance that there would be more than clarification in the new version, as opposed to new rules and policies.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/icann-confirms-possible-new-applicant-guidebook/ ICANN Confirms Possible New Applicant Guidebook, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
===Physical Expansion===
===Physical Expansion===
In September, 2011, the [[ICANN Board]] approved resolutions to secure new office space for the organization. It is possible they will negotiate for more space at their current location, or that they find a new space at their headquarters of Marina Del Rey. It was also decided to begin permanently leasing its office space in Brussels instead of continuing to rent their space month-to-month. Much of its expansion is related to the new [[gTLD]] program. At the time of the board's decision, ICANN staff numbered 124, with 21 open positions to be filled. The 2012 budget includes $2.1 million for office space acquisition and maintenance for its offices in Marina Del Rey, Brussels, Sydney, Paolo Alto, and Washington D.C..<ref>[http://domainincite.com/as-new-gtlds-loom-icann-expands/ New gTLDs expand ICANN, domainincite.com]</ref>
In September, 2011, the [[ICANN Board]] approved resolutions to secure new office space for the organization. It is possible they will negotiate for more space at their current location, or that they find a new space at their headquarters of Marina Del Rey. It was also decided to begin permanently leasing its office space in Brussels instead of continuing to rent their space month-to-month. Much of its expansion is related to the new [[gTLD]] program. At the time of the board's decision, ICANN staff numbered 124, with 21 open positions to be filled. The 2012 budget includes $2.1 million for office space acquisition and maintenance for its offices in Marina Del Rey, Brussels, Sydney, Paolo Alto, and Washington D.C..<ref>[http://domainincite.com/as-new-gtlds-loom-icann-expands/ New gTLDs expand ICANN, domainincite.com]</ref>
[[Manwin]], one of the most prominent adult content producers on the Internet, filed an Anti-Trust suit against both [[ICM Registry]] and ICANN over the creation and implementation of the .xxx TLD. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/bbreaking-owner-of-youporn-com-plans-to-file-suit-against-icm-icann-over-xxx/ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX, TheDomains.com]</ref> It also filed an [[Independent Review Panel]] (IRP) Request with ICANN, making it only the second company ever to do so (the first being ICM Registry itself). Manwin felt that ICANN's decision to allow .xxx into the root did not “adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
[[Manwin]], one of the most prominent adult content producers on the Internet, filed an Anti-Trust suit against both [[ICM Registry]] and ICANN over the creation and implementation of the .xxx TLD. This legal action took place in November, 2011, well after the TLD's approval and just before its general availability.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/bbreaking-owner-of-youporn-com-plans-to-file-suit-against-icm-icann-over-xxx/ Owner of YouPorn.com Plans to File Suit Against ICM ICANN over XXX, TheDomains.com]</ref> It also filed an [[Independent Review Panel]] (IRP) Request with ICANN, making it only the second company ever to do so (the first being ICM Registry itself). Manwin felt that ICANN's decision to allow .xxx into the root did not “adequately address issues including competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to approving the .xxx TLD."<ref>[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn Challenges New gTLDs with Review Demand, DomainIncite.com]</ref>
=References=
=References=