Changes

* 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 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>

* 2006, March - In the Wellington Communiqué by ICANN's [[GAC]], the supporting body came out against the proposed .xxx.

* 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.

 

* 2007 - ICM had posted another iteration of the registry agreement for public comments, 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.