Changes

===Independent Review Proceedings===

===Independent Review Proceedings===

ICM Registry contested the resolution of the Board and submitted a request for [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]] proceeding on June 6, 2008.Entities may request for an IRP to resolve allegations that the ICANN Board acted or decided inconsistent with the organizations Articles of Incorporation. The IRP is a final appeal to ensure transparency and since the establishment of ICANN, ICM Registry was the first entity to utilize this provision. ICM complained that ICANN exceeded its mission during the evaluation process and violated the its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The internet governing body improperly administered the 2003 RFP process for sTLD and its decision lacks transparency and discriminatory. In addition, the company alleged that ICANN . <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/icm-v-icann ICM's Request for Independent Review Process]</ref>

ICM Registry contested the Board resoultion and submitted a request for [[IRP|Independent Review Panel]] proceeding on June 6, 2008. Entities may request for an IRP to resolve their claims that the ICANN Board acted in a manner inconsistent with the organization's Articles of Incorporation. The IRP is a final appeal to ensure transparency; and due to this, ICM Registry was the first entity to utilize this provision in the history of ICANN. ICM complained that ICANN exceeded its mandate during the evaluation process and violated the its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. ICM claimed that the Internet governing body improperly administered the 2003 RFP process for sTLDs and its decision lacks transparency and is discriminatory.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/icm-v-icann ICM's Request for Independent Review Process]</ref>

ICANN Responded on Septemebr 8, 2008 and argued that ICM's allegations are false. The internet governing body pointed out that ICANN's evaluation on ICM's application was more open and transparent, the negotiations conducted on June 1, 2005 was not binding to assure approval of the Registry agreement. ICANN tried to work closely with ICM to resolve the problems in the application however, the ICANN Board believed that the underlying problems will not be resolved by awarding a contract. ICANN strongly emphasized that the decision was made in good faith to deny ICM's application.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/icm-v-icann ICANN's Response to ICM's IRP Request]</ref>

ICANN responded on Septemebr 8, 2008 and argued that ICM's allegations were false. The organization pointed out that its evaluation of ICM's application were more open and transparent, and that the negotiations conducted on June 1, 2005 were not binding and di not assure approval of the Registry agreement. ICANN tried to work closely with ICM to resolve the problems in the application, however, the ICANN Board believed that the underlying problems would not be resolved by awarding a contract. ICANN strongly emphasized that the decision was made in good faith.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/irp/icm-v-icann ICANN's Response to ICM's IRP Request]</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>

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]]. 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>

On March 12, 2010, the ICANN Board considered the IRP declaration and tasked 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 were 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>

ICANN's chairman initiated a consultation process with GAC Chair regarding the proposed ICM Registry Agreement.Prior to the schedule personal consultation, GAC sent a letter to ICANN stating that it has no active support for the introduction of the .xxx string and governments might take actions to prohibit internet access to the TLD, which is a threat to the universal stability of the DNS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/.../draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft Rationale for Approving ICM Registry Agreement]</ref>

ICANN's chairman initiated a consultation process with GAC Chair regarding the proposed ICM Registry Agreement. Prior to the schedule personal consultation, the GAC sent a letter to ICANN stating that it has no active support for the introduction of the .xxx string and governments might take actions to prohibit internet access to the TLD, which is a threat to the universal stability of the DNS.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/groups/.../draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft Rationale for Approving ICM Registry Agreement]</ref>

During the [[ICANN 40]] meeting in San Francisco on March 2011, the ICANN Board approved the ICM application. <ref>[http://www.above.com/blog/2011/03/xxx-approved-at-icann-40.html .XXX Approved at ICANN 40]</ref> The .xxx string was delegated to the [[Root Zone|root zone]] of the DNS on June 2011.<ref>[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178518/ICANN_board_approves_dot_XXX_top_level_domain_for_porn?taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=2 ICANN board approves dot-XXX top-level domain for porn]</ref>

During the [[ICANN 40]] meeting in San Francisco in March, 2011, the ICANN Board approved the ICM application.<ref>[http://www.above.com/blog/2011/03/xxx-approved-at-icann-40.html .XXX Approved at ICANN 40]</ref> The .xxx string was delegated to the [[Root Zone|root zone]] of the [[DNS]] in June, 2011.<ref>[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9178518/ICANN_board_approves_dot_XXX_top_level_domain_for_porn?taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=2 ICANN board approves dot-XXX top-level domain for porn]</ref>

==.xxx Sponsored Community==

==.xxx Sponsored Community==