9,082
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + +
→Independent Review Proceedings
Both parties submitted their briefing papers and testimonies to the three-member IRP which was handled by the [[ICDR|International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] of the [[American Arbitration Association|AAA]]. On February 19, 2010, the IRP ruled in favor of ICM. Two of the panelist agreed that ICM met the criteria for sponsorship citing that, "the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy." The opinion of the other panelist was contrary. He said that ICM did not meet the sTLD sponsorship requirements and ICANN carried out its decision with transparency.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/icm-v-icann Independent Review Panel Declaration]</ref> Moreover, the declaration of the IRP is not a binding order rather an advisory or recommendation for the ICANN Board to consider as stated on Article IV Section 3(15) of the ICANN Bylaws stating that, "Where feasible, the Board shall consider the IRP declaration at the Board's next meeting."<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV ICANN Bylaws]</ref>
Both parties submitted their briefing papers and testimonies to the three-member IRP which was handled by the [[ICDR|International Centre for Dispute Resolution]] of the [[American Arbitration Association|AAA]]. On February 19, 2010, the IRP ruled in favor of ICM. Two of the panelist agreed that ICM met the criteria for sponsorship citing that, "the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy." The opinion of the other panelist was contrary. He said that ICM did not meet the sTLD sponsorship requirements and ICANN carried out its decision with transparency.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/icm-v-icann Independent Review Panel Declaration]</ref> Moreover, the declaration of the IRP is not a binding order rather an advisory or recommendation for the ICANN Board to consider as stated on Article IV Section 3(15) of the ICANN Bylaws stating that, "Where feasible, the Board shall consider the IRP declaration at the Board's next meeting."<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV ICANN Bylaws]</ref>
On March 12, 2010, ICANN Board considered the IRP declaration and delegated the ICANN CEO and General Counsel to develop a final report for possible process options to be posted on the website.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#15 Adopted Board Resolutions, Nairobi, March 12, 2010]</ref> The ICANN Board received and evaluated 13,700 comments regarding the process options. On June 25, 2010, the ICANN Board to accept the majority recommendation of the IRP and directed the ICANN Staff to ensure that the ICM application is still current and no changes have been made to the company's qualifications.In addition, the ICANN Staff was also authorized to develop a contract with ICM to be reviewed by the Board to ensure that it is consistent with GAC's advice, if not, consultation with GAC will be done prior to approval of the contract.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#5 Adopted Board Resolutions | Brussels]</ref> On August 5, 2010, the proposed Registry Agreement was posted for public comments.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-05aug10-en.htm#9 Adopted Board Resolutions]</ref>
==References==
==References==