ICM Registry: Difference between revisions

Line 39:

* 2007 - In January, ICM posted another iteration of the registry agreement for public comments.<ref>[http://www.webcitation.org/5gAwFTjYy "ICANN Publishes Revision to Proposed ICM (.xxx) Registry Agreement for Public Comment"]</ref> In March, the [[GAC]] noted that it did not believe that the ICANN Board had sufficiently answered GAC questions regarding ICM and the sponsorship criteria. Subsequently, at [[ICANN 28]] in Lisbon, the Board voted down the ICM's application for .xxx. They noted that their decision was made based on the following findings: ICM did not meet the sponsorship requirements; the GAC believed that this lack of clear sponsorship would create public policy issues; the application raised significant law enforcement issues that it did not seek to rectify; the Board and GAC agreed that the implementation would involve ICANN overseeing a significant amount of Internet content, which would overstep the organization's technical mandate.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>

* 2008, June - ICM notified ICANN of its request for [[Independent Review Panel~~]] (~~IRP) proceedings, which is the ultimate appeal under [[ICANN Bylaws]] for any individual or entity that feels they have received a inconsistent, or wrong ICANN ruling.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm ICM-v-ICANN, ICANN.org]</ref> They were the first entity to ever utilize ICANN's IRP option, which was put into place around 2004.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2010/02/landmark-step-in-icanns-use-of-accountability-mechanisms/ Landmark Step in ICANNs Use of Accountability Mechanisms, Blog.ICANN.org]</ref> ICM noted that ICANN followed procedure improperly, claiming that the Board had approved its sponsorship requirements, proceeded to the next phase of contract negotiations, and then unjustly backtracked to sponsorship issues. ICM alleged that the Board did not apply the same sponsorship criteria to other [[sTLD]] applicants as they did to ICM. They alleged that negotiations were not held in good faith, and that ICANN was overstepping its technical mandate by considering public policy issues. ICANN responded that they always held the right to reject ICM's proposal, despite its stage in the process, and that ICM knew this; further, ICANN altered procedure to the benefit of ICM, giving them more time and delaying votes in order to accommodate addendum's to ICM's application; additionally, they noted that the ICANN Board is required to consider the public policy positions of its GAC. Documents related to the ICM IRP process can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm here].

* 2008, June - ICM notified ICANN of its request for [[Independent Review Panel|IRP) proceedings, which is the ultimate appeal under [[ICANN Bylaws]] for any individual or entity that feels they have received a inconsistent, or wrong ICANN ruling.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm ICM-v-ICANN, ICANN.org]</ref> They were the first entity to ever utilize ICANN's IRP option, which was put into place around 2004.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2010/02/landmark-step-in-icanns-use-of-accountability-mechanisms/ Landmark Step in ICANNs Use of Accountability Mechanisms, Blog.ICANN.org]</ref> ICM noted that ICANN followed procedure improperly, claiming that the Board had approved its sponsorship requirements, proceeded to the next phase of contract negotiations, and then unjustly backtracked to sponsorship issues. ICM alleged that the Board did not apply the same sponsorship criteria to other [[sTLD]] applicants as they did to ICM. They alleged that negotiations were not held in good faith, and that ICANN was overstepping its technical mandate by considering public policy issues. ICANN responded that they always held the right to reject ICM's proposal, despite its stage in the process, and that ICM knew this; further, ICANN altered procedure to the benefit of ICM, giving them more time and delaying votes in order to accommodate addendum's to ICM's application; additionally, they noted that the ICANN Board is required to consider the public policy positions of its GAC. Documents related to the ICM IRP process can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm here].

* 2009, September - ICM and ICANN submitted briefing papers and a written testimony, then participated in a 5 day hearing with a 3 member 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>

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 * 2007 - In January, ICM posted another iteration of the registry agreement for public comments.<ref>[http://www.webcitation.org/5gAwFTjYy "ICANN Publishes Revision to Proposed ICM (.xxx) Registry Agreement for Public Comment"]</ref> In March, the [[GAC]] noted that it did not believe that the ICANN Board had sufficiently answered GAC questions regarding ICM and the sponsorship criteria. Subsequently, at [[ICANN 28]] in Lisbon, the Board voted down the ICM's application for .xxx. They noted that their decision was made based on the following findings: ICM did not meet the sponsorship requirements; the GAC believed that this lack of clear sponsorship would create public policy issues; the application raised significant law enforcement issues that it did not seek to rectify; the Board and GAC agreed that the implementation would involve ICANN overseeing a significant amount of Internet content, which would overstep the organization's technical mandate.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
-* 2008, June - ICM notified ICANN of its request for [[Independent Review Panel]] (IRP) proceedings, which is the ultimate appeal under [[ICANN Bylaws]] for any individual or entity that feels they have received a inconsistent, or wrong ICANN ruling.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm ICM-v-ICANN, ICANN.org]</ref> They were the first entity to ever utilize ICANN's IRP option, which was put into place around 2004.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2010/02/landmark-step-in-icanns-use-of-accountability-mechanisms/ Landmark Step in ICANNs Use of Accountability Mechanisms, Blog.ICANN.org]</ref> ICM noted that ICANN followed procedure improperly, claiming that the Board had approved its sponsorship requirements, proceeded to the next phase of contract negotiations, and then unjustly backtracked to sponsorship issues. ICM alleged that the Board did not apply the same sponsorship criteria to other [[sTLD]] applicants as they did to ICM. They alleged that negotiations were not held in good faith, and that ICANN was overstepping its technical mandate by considering public policy issues. ICANN responded that they always held the right to reject ICM's proposal, despite its stage in the process, and that ICM knew this; further, ICANN altered procedure to the benefit of ICM, giving them more time and delaying votes in order to accommodate addendum's to ICM's application; additionally, they noted that the ICANN Board is required to consider the public policy positions of its GAC. Documents related to the ICM IRP process can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm here].
+* 2008, June - ICM notified ICANN of its request for [[Independent Review Panel|IRP) proceedings, which is the ultimate appeal under [[ICANN Bylaws]] for any individual or entity that feels they have received a inconsistent, or wrong ICANN ruling.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm ICM-v-ICANN, ICANN.org]</ref> They were the first entity to ever utilize ICANN's IRP option, which was put into place around 2004.<ref>[http://blog.icann.org/2010/02/landmark-step-in-icanns-use-of-accountability-mechanisms/ Landmark Step in ICANNs Use of Accountability Mechanisms, Blog.ICANN.org]</ref> ICM noted that ICANN followed procedure improperly, claiming that the Board had approved its sponsorship requirements, proceeded to the next phase of contract negotiations, and then unjustly backtracked to sponsorship issues. ICM alleged that the Board did not apply the same sponsorship criteria to other [[sTLD]] applicants as they did to ICM. They alleged that negotiations were not held in good faith, and that ICANN was overstepping its technical mandate by considering public policy issues. ICANN responded that they always held the right to reject ICM's proposal, despite its stage in the process, and that ICM knew this; further, ICANN altered procedure to the benefit of ICM, giving them more time and delaying votes in order to accommodate addendum's to ICM's application; additionally, they noted that the ICANN Board is required to consider the public policy positions of its GAC. Documents related to the ICM IRP process can be found [http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann.htm here].
 * 2009, September - ICM and ICANN submitted briefing papers and a written testimony, then participated in a 5 day hearing with a 3 member 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>