country: International
Registry Provider: ICM Registry
Date Implemented: 2011
Type: sponsored top level domain (sTLD)
Community TLD: internet pornography

More information:

.xxx is one of the sponsored top-level domain name (sTLD) delegated in the root zone of the internet Domain Name System (DNS). The TLD is intended for the "online adult-entertainment community." The International Foundation for Online Responsibility (IFFOR) is the sponsoring organization and it is responsible in creating policies for the .xxx. IFFOR is a non-profit organization created by ICM Registry, which serves as the registry operator of the domain. [1]

History edit

.xxx Application during the 2000 ICANN Proof of Concept edit

ICM Registry proposed the .xxx as non-sponsored generic top-level domain name (gTLD) during the ICANN Proof of Concept round in 2000. ICANN's evaluation team did not recommend the string because of the "controversy surrounding it and the poor
 definition 
of 
the
 hope for 
benefits
 of .xxx." On December 15, 2000, ICM Registry filed a Reconsideration Request with ICANN but no action was rendered. The ICANN Board cited that "no new TLD proposals has been rejected rather a small set of potentially successful applicants had been selected with the aim of testing a diversity of approaches to the creation of new TLDs." [2]

The 2003 sTLD Application Process edit

On December 15, 2003, the ICANN Board published a Request For Proposal (RFP) for new sTLDs after conducting public comments and extensive discussions within the different stakeholders within the ICANN community. ICM Registry submitted a proposal for.xxx on March 16 2004. IFFOR was named as the sponsoring organization, which will be responsible in developing policies for the proposed TLD. On August 2004, the Independent Review Panel evaluated ICM's application and reported to the ICANN Board that the the company failed to meet the baseline sponsorship criteria for sTLD.[3] Following the report, the ICANN Board approved a resolution allowing sTLD applicants to additional information to resolve the concerns raised by IRP in the report. On October 2004, ICM Registry started submitting additional documents to strengthen its application. ICM Registry was invited to make a presentation on April 3, 2005.[4]

Following the presentation, a special meeting was conducted by the ICANN Board on May 3, 2005 and discussed whether the sponsored community baseline criteria was met or not by ICM Registry. The Board decided to further discuss the issue on another meeting. [5]

On June 1, 2005, the ICANN Board tasked the ICANN President Paul Twomey and General Counsel Jon Jeffrey to negotiate the proposed commercial and technical terms for a contractual agreement in connection with the delegation of .xxx sTLD.[6]

On September 5, 2005, the proposed contractual agreement for .xxx sTLD was submitted to the ICANN Board for approval. It was also posted on ICANN's website. Significant number of comments, correspondences and inquiries from the internet and community were received by the Board relating to the contract. The Board directed the ICANN President and the General Counsel to discuss the possible additional contractual provisions or modifications for the .xxx Registry Agreemet to ensure the development and implementation of policies consistent with the principles of ICM Registry application.[7]

Several revisions were submitted and negotiations were made on the .xxx Registry Agreement between September 15, 2005 until January 5, 2007. Extensive comments and advice were also received from global internet community and from the GAC, which were evaluated by the ICANN Board. On March 30, 2007, the ICANN Board denied the ICM Registry application citing that the company failed to meet the Sponsored Community criteria set forth in the RFP, the .xxx sTLD raised public policy, approval of the Registry Agreement will not resolve the issue raised by GAC such as offensive content and protection of vulnerable members of the community, the application raises significant law enforcement issues in different countries and the application poses a possibility that ICANN might be forced to assume an ongoing management and oversight role regarding Internet content, which is inconsistent with its technical mandate.[8]

Independent Review Proceedings edit

References edit