Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

IRP

1,132 bytes added, 8 years ago
ICM Registry LLC Request for IRP
==ICM Registry LLC Request for IRP==
On June 6, 2008, ICM Registry LLC, a company based in Florida which was established to serve as the [[.xxx]] sponsored top level domain name ([[sTLD]]) filed a request for independent review of Board actions after the ICANN Board rejected its application on March 2007. The company claimed that ICANN's decision of the RFP and its decision to reject ICM's application were "arbitrary, lacking in transparency and discriminator," a clear violation of the organization's Bylaws. The complaint was filed by ICM to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution whereby the company asked the IRP to invalidate ICANN's decision. In addition, ICM also requested the IRP to declare that the company fulfilled all the requirements set by the RFP, direct ICANN to immediately execute a Registry agreement between ICANN and ICM and require ICANN to pay all the expenses incurred by the company in conjunction with its .xxx application including legal fees.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icm-irp-request-06jun08.pdf ICM Registry LLC v. ICANN]</ref>
 
On September 8, 2008, ICANN responded to the ICM complaint and pointed out that its decision was "consistent with the organization's Mission Statement, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and its negotiations with the company has been open, transparent and in good faith." In addition, ICANN reasoned that its Bylaws required the Board to consider the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). In the case of .xxx TLD, ICM knew that the string was highly controversial and GAC raised its concerns regarding the company's proposal. Those concerns were considered by ICANN in its decision. ICANN also explained that it never asserted any commitment or assured the company regarding the approval of its application. Furthermore, the internet governing body pointed out that it did not base its entire decision based on the strong recommendation of the Independent Evaluation Panel that to deny its application because it did not met the sponsorship criteria for the application process.<ref>
[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icann-response-to-icm-request-08sep08.pdf ICANN Response to ICM Request for IRP]</ref>
==Manwin Request for IRP==
9,082
edits

Navigation menu