ICM Registry: Difference between revisions

Line 44:

* 2009, September - ICM and ICANN submitted briefing papers, a written testimony, and participated in a 5 day hearing with a 3 member of the IRP panel.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref> The IRP panel was under the discretion of International Centre For Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/transcript-testimony-icm-independent-review-proceeding-21sep09-en.pdf Transcript Testimony ICM Independent Review Proceeding 21Sep09, ICANN.org]</ref>

* 2010- February 19th, The [[IRP]] (Independent Review Panel) issued a declaration in its review of ICM Registry's appeal.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm "Public Comment: Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .xxx sTLD"]</ref> The Panel found that the application for the ".xxx [[sTLD]] met the required sponsorship criteria," and that "the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/draft-options-post-irp-declaration-26mar10-en.pdf "ICANN Options Following the IRP Declaration on ICM's .xxx Application"]</ref> The panel's finding is non-binding, and of the 3 panelists, one dissented with the majority opinion; the dissenter noted that ICM never satisfied sponsorship requirements and the criteria for the sTLD, and that the ICANN Board conducted itself in a transparent manner.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>

* 2010- February, 19th - The [[IRP]] (Independent Review Panel) issued a declaration in its review of ICM Registry's appeal.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm "Public Comment: Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .xxx sTLD"]</ref> The Panel found that the application for the ".xxx [[sTLD]] met the required sponsorship criteria," and that "the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/draft-options-post-irp-declaration-26mar10-en.pdf "ICANN Options Following the IRP Declaration on ICM's .xxx Application"]</ref> The panel's finding is non-binding, and of the 3 panelists, one dissented with the majority opinion; the dissenter noted that ICM never satisfied sponsorship requirements and the criteria for the sTLD, and that the ICANN Board conducted itself in a transparent manner.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>

* 2010, March 26, A 45 day public comment was opened to address ICANN's options. They drew up a simple schema to show their options, which can be seen [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf here]. Their options were laid out as: 1.) Accept majority finding in full; 2.) Accept majority finding in part; 3.) Adopt dissenting finding. Accepting the majority in part would entail going back to consider A.) The 2005 Board decision that .xxx met sponsorship criteria; B.) the 2007 reconsideration of that decision. Adopting the dissent, and thus continuing to deny .xxx's application would also involve continued consideration of the evaluation uncertainty.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf Options Map 26Mar10, ICANN.org]</ref> The public comment forum addressing ICANN's options received more than 13,000 posts, the highest level of feedback ever received in an ICANN comment period. However, it was noted that many of the comments did not actually fall within the scope of the options map.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>

* 2010, March, 26th - A 45 day public comment was opened to address ICANN's options. They drew up a simple schema to show their options, which can be seen [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf here]. Their options were laid out as: 1.) Accept majority finding in full; 2.) Accept majority finding in part; 3.) Adopt dissenting finding. Accepting the majority in part would entail going back to consider A.) The 2005 Board decision that .xxx met sponsorship criteria; B.) the 2007 reconsideration of that decision. Adopting the dissent, and thus continuing to deny .xxx's application would also involve continued consideration of the evaluation uncertainty.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf Options Map 26Mar10, ICANN.org]</ref> The public comment forum addressing ICANN's options received more than 13,000 posts, the highest level of feedback ever received in an ICANN comment period. However, it was noted that many of the comments did not actually fall within the scope of the options map.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>

* 2011- June 25th, [[ICANN]]'s board approved the proposal at [[ICANN 40]] in San Francisco, USA, thereby authorizing the implementation of .xxx in the [[Root Zone|root zone]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/technology/26domain.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26srcQ3Dbusln&OP=10b995d5Q2Fzq@yzQ7E!Q5Do6!!DXzXCjCzCQ51zXQ51zD@Q5DQ2F_!5!Q7BQ26zXQ51Q7E!uiQ20_,Q2FDu5 Miguel Helft (June 25, 2010). "For X-Rated, a Domain of Their Own"]</ref>

* 2011- June, 25th - [[ICANN]]'s board approved the proposal at [[ICANN 40]] in San Francisco, USA, thereby authorizing the implementation of .xxx in the [[Root Zone|root zone]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/technology/26domain.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26srcQ3Dbusln&OP=10b995d5Q2Fzq@yzQ7E!Q5Do6!!DXzXCjCzCQ51zXQ51zD@Q5DQ2F_!5!Q7BQ26zXQ51Q7E!uiQ20_,Q2FDu5 Miguel Helft (June 25, 2010). "For X-Rated, a Domain of Their Own"]</ref>

==Marketing==

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 * 2009, September - ICM and ICANN submitted briefing papers, a written testimony, and participated in a 5 day hearing with a 3 member of the IRP panel.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref> The IRP panel was under the discretion of International Centre For Dispute Resolution of the American Arbitration Association.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/transcript-testimony-icm-independent-review-proceeding-21sep09-en.pdf Transcript Testimony ICM Independent Review Proceeding 21Sep09, ICANN.org]</ref>
-* 2010- February 19th, The [[IRP]] (Independent Review Panel) issued a declaration in its review of ICM Registry's appeal.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm "Public Comment: Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .xxx sTLD"]</ref> The Panel found that the application for the ".xxx [[sTLD]] met the required sponsorship criteria," and that "the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/draft-options-post-irp-declaration-26mar10-en.pdf "ICANN Options Following the IRP Declaration on ICM's .xxx Application"]</ref> The panel's finding is non-binding, and of the 3 panelists, one dissented with the majority opinion; the dissenter noted that ICM never satisfied sponsorship requirements and the criteria for the sTLD, and that the ICANN Board conducted itself in a transparent manner.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
+* 2010- February, 19th - The [[IRP]] (Independent Review Panel) issued a declaration in its review of ICM Registry's appeal.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-26mar10-en.htm "Public Comment: Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Application for the .xxx sTLD"]</ref> The Panel found that the application for the ".xxx [[sTLD]] met the required sponsorship criteria," and that "the Board’s reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy".<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/draft-options-post-irp-declaration-26mar10-en.pdf "ICANN Options Following the IRP Declaration on ICM's .xxx Application"]</ref> The panel's finding is non-binding, and of the 3 panelists, one dissented with the majority opinion; the dissenter noted that ICM never satisfied sponsorship requirements and the criteria for the sTLD, and that the ICANN Board conducted itself in a transparent manner.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
-* 2010, March 26,  A 45 day public comment was opened to address ICANN's options. They drew up a simple schema to show their options, which can be seen [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf here]. Their options were laid out as: 1.) Accept majority finding in full; 2.) Accept majority finding in part; 3.) Adopt dissenting finding. Accepting the majority in part would entail going back to consider A.) The 2005 Board decision that .xxx met sponsorship criteria; B.) the 2007 reconsideration of that decision. Adopting the dissent, and thus continuing to deny .xxx's application would also involve continued consideration of the evaluation uncertainty.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf Options Map 26Mar10, ICANN.org]</ref> The public comment forum addressing ICANN's options received more than 13,000 posts, the highest level of feedback ever received in an ICANN comment period. However, it was noted that many of the comments did not actually fall within the scope of the options map.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
+* 2010, March, 26th -  A 45 day public comment was opened to address ICANN's options. They drew up a simple schema to show their options, which can be seen [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf here]. Their options were laid out as: 1.) Accept majority finding in full; 2.) Accept majority finding in part; 3.) Adopt dissenting finding. Accepting the majority in part would entail going back to consider A.) The 2005 Board decision that .xxx met sponsorship criteria; B.) the 2007 reconsideration of that decision. Adopting the dissent, and thus continuing to deny .xxx's application would also involve continued consideration of the evaluation uncertainty.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/options-map-26mar10-en.pdf Options Map 26Mar10, ICANN.org]</ref> The public comment forum addressing ICANN's options received more than 13,000 posts, the highest level of feedback ever received in an ICANN comment period. However, it was noted that many of the comments did not actually fall within the scope of the options map.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
-* 2011- June 25th, [[ICANN]]'s board approved the proposal at [[ICANN 40]] in San Francisco, USA, thereby authorizing the implementation of .xxx in the [[Root Zone|root zone]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/technology/26domain.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26srcQ3Dbusln&OP=10b995d5Q2Fzq@yzQ7E!Q5Do6!!DXzXCjCzCQ51zXQ51zD@Q5DQ2F_!5!Q7BQ26zXQ51Q7E!uiQ20_,Q2FDu5 Miguel Helft (June 25, 2010). "For X-Rated, a Domain of Their Own"]</ref>
+* 2011- June, 25th - [[ICANN]]'s board approved the proposal at [[ICANN 40]] in San Francisco, USA, thereby authorizing the implementation of .xxx in the [[Root Zone|root zone]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/technology/26domain.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26srcQ3Dbusln&OP=10b995d5Q2Fzq@yzQ7E!Q5Do6!!DXzXCjCzCQ51zXQ51zD@Q5DQ2F_!5!Q7BQ26zXQ51Q7E!uiQ20_,Q2FDu5 Miguel Helft (June 25, 2010). "For X-Rated, a Domain of Their Own"]</ref>
 ==Marketing==