Changes

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 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>

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>

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>

==References==

==References==