Changes

[http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm The New Bylaws Effective as of December 15, 2002]</ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm The New Bylaws Effective as of December 15, 2002]</ref>

==Members of the IRP Nominating Committee==

===Members of the IRP Nominating Committee===

The initial members of the IRP Nominating Committee include:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/indreview/nomcom.htm Independent Review Panel Nominating Committee]</ref>

The initial members of the IRP Nominating Committee included:<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/committees/indreview/nomcom.htm Independent Review Panel Nominating Committee]</ref>

* [[Tim Berners-Lee]]

* [[Tim Berners-Lee]]

* [[Scott Hemphill]]

* [[Scott Hemphill]]

==Independent Review of Board Actions==

==Independent Review of Board Actions==

Under Article IV Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws, the internet governing body is mandated to develop a separate process for third-party review of Board actions in the event of accusations that the Board decided in contrast with the organizations Bylaws. Complainants are required to submit a request for an independent review of the action or decision. An Independent Review Panel operated by an international dispute resolution provider will handle the case and determine the merit of the accusations whether ICANN violated its Bylaws in conjunction with the contested action. The selected IRP is required to submit its operating rules and procedures to the ICANN Board for approval. A three-member IRP is allowed as per request of either party. If there is no request for a three-member panel, the dispute will be resolved by a one-member panel. Members of the IRP must follow the conflict of interest policy as stated in the IRP provider's operating rules and procedures.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#IV-3 Article IV Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws December 15, 2002]</ref>

Under Article IV Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws, the internet governing body is mandated to develop a separate process for third-party review of Board actions in the event of accusations that the Board decided in contrast with the organization's Bylaws. Complainants are required to submit a request for an independent review of the action or decision. An Independent Review Panel operated by an international dispute resolution provider will handle the case and determine the merit of the accusations and whether ICANN violated its Bylaws via the contested action. The selected IRP is required to submit its operating rules and procedures to the ICANN Board for approval. A three-member IRP is allowed as per request of either party. If there is no request for a three-member panel, the dispute will be resolved by a one-member panel. Members of the IRP must follow the conflict of interest policy as stated in the IRP provider's operating rules and procedures.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-15dec02.htm#IV-3 Article IV Section 3 of the ICANN Bylaws December 15, 2002]</ref>

==ICM Registry LLC Request for IRP==

==ICM Registry LLC Request for IRP==

On June 6, 2008, ICM Registry LLC, a company based in Florida which was established to serve as the [[.xxx]] sponsored top level domain name ([[sTLD]]) filed a request for independent review of Board actions after the ICANN Board rejected its application on March 2007. The company claimed that ICANN's decision of the RFP and its decision to reject ICM's application were "arbitrary, lacking in transparency and discriminator," a clear violation of the organization's Bylaws. The complaint was filed by ICM to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ([[ICDR]]) whereby the company asked the IRP to invalidate ICANN's decision. In addition, ICM also requested the IRP to declare that the company fulfilled all the requirements set by the RFP, direct ICANN to immediately execute a Registry agreement between ICANN and ICM and require ICANN to pay all the expenses incurred by the company in conjunction with its .xxx application including legal fees.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icm-irp-request-06jun08.pdf ICM Registry LLC v. ICANN]</ref>

On June 6, 2008, ICM Registry LLC, a company based in Florida which was established to apply and serve as the [[.xxx]] [[sTLD|sponsored top level domain name]] (sTLD) manager filed a request for independent review of Board actions after the ICANN Board rejected its application in March, 2007. The company claimed that ICANN's decision to reject ICM's application were "arbitrary, lacking in transparency and discriminatory," a clear violation of the organization's Bylaws. The complaint was filed by ICM to the International Centre for Dispute Resolution ([[ICDR]]) whereby the company asked the IRP to invalidate ICANN's decision. In addition, ICM also requested the IRP to declare that the company fulfilled all the requirements set by the RFP, direct ICANN to immediately execute a Registry agreement between ICANN and ICM and require ICANN to pay all the expenses incurred by the company in conjunction with its .xxx application including legal fees.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icm-irp-request-06jun08.pdf ICM Registry LLC v. ICANN]</ref>

On September 8, 2008, ICANN responded to the ICM complaint and pointed out that its decision was "consistent with the organization's Mission Statement, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and its negotiations with the company has been open, transparent and in good faith." In addition, ICANN reasoned that its Bylaws required the Board to consider the opinion of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). In the case of .xxx TLD, ICM knew that the string was highly controversial and GAC raised its concerns regarding the company's proposal. Those concerns were considered by ICANN in its decision. ICANN also explained that it never asserted any commitment or assured the company regarding the approval of its application. Furthermore, the internet governing body pointed out that it did not base its entire decision based on the strong recommendation of the Independent Evaluation Panel that to deny its application because it did not met the  sponsorship criteria for the application process.<ref>

On September 8, 2008, ICANN responded to the ICM complaint and pointed out that its decision was "consistent with the organization's Mission Statement, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and its negotiations with the company had been open, transparent and in good faith." In addition, ICANN reasoned that its Bylaws required the Board to consider the opinion of the [[GAC|Governmental Advisory Committee]] (GAC). In the case of .xxx TLD, ICM knew that the string was highly controversial and the GAC raised its concerns regarding the company's proposal. Those concerns were considered by ICANN in its decision. ICANN also explained that it never asserted any commitment or assured the company regarding the approval of its application. Furthermore, the internet governing body pointed out that it did not base its entire decision on the strong recommendation of the Independent Evaluation Panel to deny its application because it did not meet the  sponsorship criteria for the application process.<ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icann-response-to-icm-request-08sep08.pdf ICANN Response to ICM Request for IRP]</ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/icann-response-to-icm-request-08sep08.pdf ICANN Response to ICM Request for IRP]</ref>

On February 18, 2010, the IRP declared that  ICM Registry met the required sponsorship criteria for the .xxx sTLD application process thus ICANN did not carry out a fair and objective decision. Pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(12) of the Bylaws, the internet governing body will shoulder the fees and expenses incurred by the ICDR ($4,500) including all the expenses and fees of the IRP ($473,744.91) and reimburse the ICM registry's expenses ($241,372.46).<ref>

On February 18, 2010, the IRP declared that  ICM Registry met the required sponsorship criteria for the .xxx sTLD application process, and that ICANN did not carry out a fair and objective decision. Pursuant to Article IV, Section 3(12) of the Bylaws, the Internet governing body will shoulder the fees and expenses incurred by the ICDR ($4,500) including all the expenses and fees of the IRP ($473,744.91) and reimburse the ICM registry's expenses ($241,372.46).<ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/irp-panel-declaration-19feb10-en.pdf Declaration of the Independent Review Panel]</ref>

[http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/irp-panel-declaration-19feb10-en.pdf Declaration of the Independent Review Panel]</ref>

==Manwin Request for IRP==

==Manwin Request for IRP==

Manwin Licensing International, the owner of numerous licenses and trademarks for adult oriented domain names such as YouPorn and xTube filed a request for an Independent Review Panel on November 16, 2011. The company claimed that the ICANN Board fall short in addressing important issues such as competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior in connection with its approval of the .xxx TLD in favor of ICM Registry. In addition, Manwin alleged that ICANN failed to compel ICM to follow its registry contract and allowed the company to engage in anti-competitive practice and violate IP rights.<ref>

Manwin Licensing International, the owner of numerous licenses and trademarks for adult oriented domain names such as YouPorn and xTube filed a request for an Independent Review Panel on November 16, 2011. The company claimed that the ICANN Board fell short of addressing important issues such as competition, consumer protection, malicious abuse and rights protection prior to its approval of the .xxx TLD. In addition, Manwin alleged that ICANN failed to compel ICM to follow its registry contract and allowed the company to engage in anti-competitive practice and violate IP rights.<ref>

[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn challenges new gTLDs with review demand]</ref>

[http://domainincite.com/youporn-challenges-new-gtlds-with-review-demand/ YouPorn challenges new gTLDs with review demand]</ref>

==References==

==References==

[[Category:Glossary]]

[[Category:Glossary]]

__Notoc__

__Notoc__