14,326
edits
Changes
no edit summary
}}
}}
'''ICM Registry''' is the registry operator behind the [[.xxx]] [[registry]]. The [[International Foundation For Online Responsibility]] (IFFOR) is the sponsoring organization,<ref>[http://www.icmregistry.com/about/icm.php About ICM Registry]</ref> though it has seen by some as not being sufficiently independent and essentially an extension of ICM.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/lawley-quits-as-xxx-sponsor-chairman/ Lawley Quits as XXX Sponsor Chairman, DomainIncite.com]</ref> [[.xxx]] launched as the Internet's 22nd [[TLD]].<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/12/06/iown-xxx-becomes-1st-xxx-domain-name-to-be-registered-in-go-live/ IOwnxxx Becomes 1st XXX Domain Name, TheDomains.com]</ref>
'''ICM Registry''' is the registry operator behind the [[.xxx]] [[registry]]. The [[International Foundation For Online Responsibility]] (IFFOR) is the sponsoring organization,<ref>[http://www.icmregistry.com/about/icm.php About ICM Registry]</ref> though it is seen by some as not being sufficiently independent, and essentially an extension of ICM.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/lawley-quits-as-xxx-sponsor-chairman/ Lawley Quits as XXX Sponsor Chairman, DomainIncite.com]</ref> [[.xxx]] is the Internet's 22nd [[gTLD]].<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/12/06/iown-xxx-becomes-1st-xxx-domain-name-to-be-registered-in-go-live/ IOwnxxx Becomes 1st XXX Domain Name, TheDomains.com]</ref>
== History up to Approval of .xxx at ICANN 40 ==
== History up to Approval of .xxx at ICANN 40 ==
* 2000- ICM Registry was founded by Jason Hendeles in Delaware, USA.
* 2000 - ICM Registry was founded by Jason Hendeles in Delaware, USA.
* 2000- ICM Registry, a private company, submitted a proposal at [[ICANN]]’s 2000 Proof of Concept Round, proposing two unsponsored [[gTLD]] strings - [[.kids]] and .xxx. <ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/kids3/ ICANN.org]</ref> The evaluators in the Proof of Concept Round recommended against the inclusion of either the .kids or the .xxx [[TLD]] strings in the Proof of Concept Round.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/report/report-iiib1c-09nov00.htm ICANN.org]</ref>
* 2000 - ICM Registry, a private company, submitted a proposal at [[ICANN]]’s 2000 Proof of Concept Round, proposing two unsponsored [[gTLD]] strings - [[.kids]] and .xxx.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/kids3/ ICANN.org]</ref> The evaluators in the Proof of Concept Round recommended against the inclusion of either the .kids or the .xxx strings.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/report/report-iiib1c-09nov00.htm ICANN.org]</ref>
* 2004, June- ICM submitted a request for .xxx as an [[sTLD]], or Sponsored Top Level Domain, its sponsoring organization was the [[IFFOR|International&Foundation&for&Online&Responsibility]]. They passed the Financial and Technical Review Panels, but failed to pass the Sponsorship panel. That panel found that they did not represent a cohesive community, that they did not have sufficient international participation, that they had not sufficiently involved child safety and law enforcement advocates, and that they would not add value to the Internet. The [[ICANN Board]] gave ICM, and 5 other applicants that failed passing the Sponsorship panel, a chance to supplement their application and justify their legitimacy.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
* 2004, June - ICM submitted a request for .xxx as an [[sTLD]], or Sponsored Top Level Domain, with its sponsoring organization as the [[IFFOR|International Foundation for Online Responsibility]]. They passed the Financial and Technical Review Panels, but failed to pass the Sponsorship panel. That panel found that they did not represent a cohesive community, that they did not have sufficient international participation, that they had not sufficiently involved child safety and law enforcement advocates, and that they would not add value to the Internet. The [[ICANN Board]] gave ICM, along with 5 other applicants that failed passing the Sponsorship panel, a chance to supplement their application and justify their legitimacy.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
* 2005, June- the [[ICANN Board]] resolved that the [[ICANN President]] and its General Counsel could begin discussing the commercial and technical aspects of a potential [[Registry Agreement|registry agreement]], despite the fact that the organization still had outstanding issues with the application.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
* 2005, June - The [[ICANN Board]] resolved that the [[ICANN President]] and [[ICANN General Counsel|General Counsel]] could begin discussing the commercial and technical aspects of a potential [[Registry Agreement|registry agreement]] with ICM, despite the fact that the organization still had outstanding issues with the application.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/draft-icm-rationale-18mar11-en.pdf Draft ICM Rationale 18Mar11, ICANN.org]</ref>
* 2006, March - In the Wellington Communiqué by ICANN's [[GAC]], the supporting body came out against the proposed .xxx. Also at that time, the ICANN Board voted down the revised registry agreement, but still did not throw out the application.
* 2006, March - In the Wellington Communiqué by ICANN's [[GAC]], the committee came out against the proposed .xxx. Also at that time, the ICANN Board voted down the revised registry agreement, but still did not throw out the application.
* 2007, January - ICM had 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> while, in March, the [[GAC]] noted that it did not believe that the ICANN Board sufficiently answered its questions regarding ICM and the sponsorship criteria. Subsequently, still 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 does not meet the sponsorship requirements; the GAC believes that this lack of clear sponsorship will create public policy issues; the application raises significant law enforcement issues that it does not seek to rectify; the Board and GAC agree that the implementation would involve ICANN overseeing a significant amount of Internet content, which oversteps 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>
* 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 and requested [[Independent Review Panel]] (IRP) proceedings, which is the ultimate appeal under [[ICANN Bylaws]]' to 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 improper procedure, whereby they proved Sponsorship requirements, proceeded to the next phase of contract negotiations, and where then unjustly faced once again with sponsorship issues; they alleged that they did not apply the same sponsorship criteria to ICM as they did to other [[sTLD]] applicants; 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; that 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; and they noted that the ICANN Board is required to consider the public policy positions of its GAC.
* 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>
* 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 .xxx 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 findings were 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 an 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 26th - A 45 day public comment was opened to address ICANN's options. They drew up a simple outline 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 whether the 2005 Board decision that .xxx met sponsorship criteria and 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. It was noted, however, 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>
* 2010, June - At [[ICANN Brussels]], the Board resolved that it would 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|registry agreement]] was posted for public comment.
* 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 proved impossible, and in March, 2011, ahead of the official approval of the .xxx extension, the GAC issued a statement that it did 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 fallout by ignoring their outstanding concerns. [[ICANN]]'s 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>
* 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. [[ICANN]]'s 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 - The ICANN 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==
ICM Registry announced in September, 2011, that it would be sponsoring world champion Mike Seebold's powerboat. The boat was unveiled at the 2011 [[T.R.A.F.F.I.C.]] conference in Fort Lauderdale, a week before its racing debut at the World Championship in Key West.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/09/30/coming-soon-the-xxx-speedboat/ Coming Soon XXX Speedboat, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> ICM Registry was a top sponsor for T.R.A.F.F.I.C 2011.<ref>[http://www.targetedtraffic.com/ TargetedTraffic.com]</ref> In November, 2011, Mike Seebold and the .XXX boat won for place in their class at the World Champions Final, despite the boat having trouble on two prior qualifying races. Unfortunately, the week of racing was marred by numerous deaths. [[Michael Berkens]] notes via his blog that as a result of the championships, there was a great deal of public interest and acceptance regarding .xxx.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/death-victory-acceptance-my-weekend-watching-the-xxx-boat-race-in-the-world-championship/ Death, Victory, Acceptance, TheDomains.com]</ref>
Other parts of ICM Registry's marketing plan include video ads featuring a character, Gavin, who flashes between living his normal life with his [[.com]] address and his possible new life as a rich porn dealer, made possible by [[.xxx]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kXYrikqtmk YouTube.com]</ref> The videos were noted as viral hits, and reached international audiences thanks to the variety of subtitles available for them.<ref>[http://blog.dotsub.com/2011/10/03/dotxxx-launches-globally-with-subtitled-videos/ dotXXX Launches Globally With Subtitled Videos, blog.dotsub.com]</ref> Some of the more controversial Gavin videos, such as one in which two porn-star types suggestively play with a hotdog, were pulled from YouTube as "deceptive." Apparently, 4 or 5 videos had been yanked by YouTube.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/youtube_ads/ YouTube ads, TheRegister.co.uk]</ref>
ICM Registry announced in September, 2011, that it would be sponsoring world champion, Mike Seebold's, powerboat. The boat is to be unvieled at the 2011 [[T.R.A.F.F.I.C.]] conference in Fort Lauderdale, a week before its racing debut at the World Championship in Key West.<ref>[http://domainnamewire.com/2011/09/30/coming-soon-the-xxx-speedboat/ Coming Soon XXX Speedboat, DomainNameWire.com]</ref> ICM Registry is a top sponsor for T.R.A.F.F.I.C 2011.<ref>[http://www.targetedtraffic.com/ TargetedTraffic.com]</ref> In November, 2011, Mike Seebold, in the .XXX boat, won his class in the World Champions Final; the boat did have trouble on two prior qualifying races. Unfortunately, the week of racing was marred by numerous deaths. [[Michael Berkens]] notes via his blog that there was a great deal of public interest and acceptance regarding what exactly .xxx is.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/16/death-victory-acceptance-my-weekend-watching-the-xxx-boat-race-in-the-world-championship/ Death, Victory, Acceptance, TheDomains.com]</ref>
Also in Fall 2011, ICM Registry became a main sponsor of the "Porn Star Road Trip," in which porn stars travel for two week stints in a large bus to various nightclubs and industry events. The initial stint sponsored by ICM will see the bus, plastered all over with the .xxx logo, traveling Florida and eventually a conference in New Jersey, though there appear to be plans to use the bus and actresses at other future events as well.<ref>[http://releases.naughtypr.com/?p=222 News, naughtyPR.com]</ref>
At the end of November, 2011, a few weeks before the general availability of .xxx domains, ICM began a media blitz on prominent German and British cable T.V. channels. The media blitz was scheduled to last at least 5 weeks.<ref>[http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/23/buy-xxx-media-blitz-starts-tonight/ Buy xxx Media Blitz Starts Tonight, TheDomains.com]</ref> They also put up billboards around the U.S., including in Times Square.<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/youtube_ads/ YouTube Ads, TheRegister.co.uk]</ref>
===Negative Reaction===
===Negative Reaction===
At least one critic has labelled ICM Registry's business model, from the domain itself to its advertising, as an "intimidation TLD".<ref>[http://domainshane.com/xxx-sucks-what-is-the-next-indimidation-tld/ XXX .sucks What is the Next Intimidation TLD, DomainShane.com]</ref>
At least one critic has labelled ICM Registry's business model, from the domain itself to its advertising, as an "intimidation TLD."<ref>[http://domainshane.com/xxx-sucks-what-is-the-next-indimidation-tld/ XXX .sucks What is the Next Intimidation TLD, DomainShane.com]</ref>
In November, 2011, Manwin Licensing International filed a lawsuit in response to ICM Registry advertisements that used pressure tactics, such as running ads with wording like: ".XXX LANDRUSH IS NOW OPEN. PROTECT YOUR BRAND" or "SECURE YOUR DOMAIN. PROTECT YOUR REPUTATION".<ref>[http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=icm Blog, TechDirt.com]</ref>
In November, 2011, [[Manwin]] Licensing International filed a lawsuit in response to ICM Registry advertisements that used pressure tactics, such as running ads with wording like: ".XXX LANDRUSH IS NOW OPEN. PROTECT YOUR BRAND" or "SECURE YOUR DOMAIN. PROTECT YOUR REPUTATION."<ref>[http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=icm Blog, TechDirt.com]</ref>
==Reserved Names==
==Reserved Names==
===Defensive Registration===
===Defensive Registration===
Some of the criticism leveled against ICM, starting during their application process and going forward, was the necessary defensive registration for many brand owners. ICM did make a block list for celebrities and certain other entities. It was reported that many Universites were buying .xxx domains related to their schools, as they did not want someone taking advantage of the name of their school, their sports teams, or their mascots and associating it with sexual material.<ref>[http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/universities_try_to_keep_their.html Universities Try to Keep Their, Blog.Cleveland.com]</ref>
Some of the criticism leveled against ICM, starting during their application process and going forward, was the necessary defensive registration for many brand owners. ICM did make a block list for celebrities and certain other entities. It was reported that many Universites were buying .xxx domains related to their schools, as they did not want someone taking advantage of the name of their school, their sports teams, or their mascots and associating it with sexual material.<ref>[http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/universities_try_to_keep_their.html Universities Try to Keep Their, Blog.Cleveland.com]</ref>
==Launch==
==Launch==
Following the opening of the general availability of .xxx domains on December, 8th, ICM Registry declared the launch of the name space a victory, and described it as "the most successful launch of any new sponsored top level domain". Indeed, their international, high-profile advertising campaign, and the nature of the domain itself, attracted a great deal of media coverage.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/icm_announces_general_availability_of_xxx_domain_names/ ICM Announces General Availability of XXX Domain Names, CircleID.com]</ref>
Following the opening of the general availability of .xxx domains on December, 8th, ICM Registry declared the launch of the name space a victory, and described it as "the most successful launch of any new sponsored top level domain". Indeed, their international, high-profile advertising campaign, and the nature of the domain itself, attracted a great deal of media coverage.<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/icm_announces_general_availability_of_xxx_domain_names/ ICM Announces General Availability of XXX Domain Names, CircleID.com]</ref>