ICM Registry: Difference between revisions

Line 47:

* 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>

* 2010, June - At [[ICANN Brussels]], the Board resolved that it would act in accept the majority opinion of the [[IRP]], and thus set the stage to approve .xxx. They then instructed staff to ensure that ICM's application was still current with no changes made or necessitated. In August, a proposed [[Registry Agreement]] was posted for public comment.

* 2010, October - ICANN began trying to rectify outstanding concerns from the [[GAC]] with the proposed registry agreement with ICM. This would not be possible, and in March, 2011, ahead of the official approval of the .xxx extension, the GAC issued a statement that it does not support the introduction of the .xxx namespace into the [[Root Zone|root zone]], that some of its members emphatically opposed the measure and would likely block the extension in their country, and that ICANN was risking technical and political fall-out by ignoring their outstanding concerns. Reasons for not following GAC advice, throughout the entire ICM .xxx application, can be found at the latter half of [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf this document].<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>

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 * 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>
+* 2010, June - At [[ICANN Brussels]], the Board resolved that it would act in accept the majority opinion of the [[IRP]], and thus set the stage to approve .xxx. They then instructed staff to ensure that ICM's application was still current with no changes made or necessitated. In August, a proposed [[Registry Agreement]] was posted for public comment.
+* 2010, October - ICANN began trying to rectify outstanding concerns from the [[GAC]] with the proposed registry agreement with ICM. This would not be possible, and in March, 2011, ahead of the official approval of the .xxx extension, the GAC issued a statement that it does not support the introduction of the .xxx namespace into the [[Root Zone|root zone]], that some of its members emphatically opposed the measure and would likely block the extension in their country, and that ICANN was risking technical and political fall-out by ignoring their outstanding concerns. Reasons for not following GAC advice, throughout the entire ICM .xxx application, can be found at the latter half of [http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf this document].<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>