Entries tagged with “xxx” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
EOI was killed off, "vertical integration" was shunted back to a GNSO workgroup to "sort it out", while the much awaited "decision" on .xxx morphed into this:
15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN
Whereas, on 6 June 2008, in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, ICM Registry, Inc. filed an application for an Independent Review challenging ICANN's denial of ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD;
Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP;
Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel (Panel) was constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting out their respective positions on the matter;
Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held in Washington DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and witness testimony;
Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority Declaration with findings;
Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.15 of ICANN's Bylaws, "[w]here feasible, given that the Board shall consider the IRP Panel Declaration at the Board's next meeting";
Whereas, the Board has considered the IRP Panel Declaration throughout the week in Nairobi from 7-12 March 2010 and reviewed various paths toward conclusion; and
Whereas, in the absence of a process for approving an sTLD six years following the receipt of the original application, the Board wishes to create a transparent set of process options which can be published for public comment.
Resolved (2010.03.12.39), the Board has considered the Independent Review Panel's Declaration in conformity with the ICANN Bylaws requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths regarding ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD.
Resolved (2010.03.12.40), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration.
Resolved (2010.03.12.41), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel to post the report of possible process options on the ICM matter for public comment within 14 days, which will enable the community to provide input on the Board processes. The report will be posted for public comment for no less than 45 days, which will enable the Board to consider the possible process options no later than ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels.
Which led to the publishing of this set of documents by ICANN yesterday
Now there is a public comment period and then there'll be another report which will be presented to the board and maybe - just maybe, the board will make some kind of actual decision at the Brussels meeting in June.
Now don't hold your breath whatever you do!
ICANN's board may end up shunting the entire thing back to the community again or get blocked by the GAC.
In the meantime I suspect ICM feel a bit like a mouse in a maze:
(Thanks to the little birdie who provided the graphic)
The ICANN meeting in Nairobi starts officially next Monday. However, as is normally the case, by the time Monday rolls around people will already have been working since Saturday morning (if not earlier).
All ICANN meetings seem to be surrounded by some bit of controversy and excitement, but the Nairobi meeting is possibly more dramatic than many others. The last attempt to hold a meeting in Nairobi failed, with ICANN opting to hold the meeting near LA's airport, LAX, instead. This time round there was quite a bit of controversy and tension surrounding the meeting's location.
The end result of the tension, security worries and everything else is that quite a large number of people who would normally attend the meeting will be staying at home.
Others will be travelling to Reston, VA, where Neustar has organised a US offsite location. Though with the time difference between VA and Nairobi anyone in attendance will end up working through the night!
So what's on the agenda?
New TLDs - this time round the focus will be on "EOI" - the concept of "expressions of interest" that was mooted at the last meeting in Seoul.
DNS SEC will be on the agenda again, but getting excited about it is far from easy - sorry!
IPv4 depletion will probably get a look in, but it's still a "hard sell". Until ISPs "buy in" and start deploying v6 on their public networks it's going to be nigh on impossible to make any tangible or meaningful movement in this area.
IDN ccTLDs. You can expect updates from the various countries that have applied using the "fast track". There might be more applications from other countries, as the meeting will have attracted its usual media circus.
But the real "hot potato" for ICANN is going to be .xxx
Following on from the recent decision which found that ICANN had "dropped the ball", the ICANN board will be voting on the Friday of the public meeting.
In reality you can expect to see board members being canvassed / briefed / harassed by interested parties pretty much all week. How will they vote?
Will the US government try to intervene?
If ICANN do move ahead with .xxx, will that have any impact on new TLDs?
If ICANN's board doesn't move ahead with .xxx this time round there is little or no chance that Stuart Lawley and ICM Registry are going to throw in the towel.
To start with they've no reason to. They have just won a legal battle that shows that ICANN was in the wrong. Sure, it may not be "binding", but any decision that so much as casts a doubt on ICANN's processes and procedures is a "win" for ICM - and rightly so.
So how would ICANN fare if ICM were to pursue this through to the next level?
ICANN stakeholders probably don't want to see their money being poured down a legal drain .. I know I don't ..
Image via Wikipedia
Put the two together and you are bound to find an interesting story.
While the saga surrounding sex.com took a new twist in the last couple of days, with the current owners going dotbomb, the .xxx story also took an interesting turn.
ICM Registry LLC applied to ICANN to run the .xxx TLD. You don't need to be a genius to work out which sector .xxx was aimed at - adult entertainment / mature content.
For several years ICM and ICANN tangoed.
In the end the ICANN board voted during the Lisbon meeting (March 30th 2007) against .xxx and focus shifted to other events. The Lisbon meeting was the first ICANN meeting that I attended and I remember the tension in the hotel bar on the night before the board meeting. You could have cut the air with a knife. ICM and their supporters were literally in one camp, while those in opposition were in another. Westerdal's article (linked above) covers most of the salient points in the history of the .xxx bid to that date.
However the story of .xxx did not end in Lisbon.
But ICM weren't going to simply "roll over". They'd already had one application for the .xxx TLD rejected and so they then asked for an independent review. That was back in September of last year, with parts of the process taking place earlier in the year.
The independent review involved testimony from not only ICM executives, but also former ICANN CEO Dr Paul Twomey, Dr Vint Cerf and many many others.
For those involved with the new TLD process the outcome of any review of ICM's .xxx application will be examined very closely. The new TLD application guidebook, which is still being drafted, will obviously be influenced by any previous TLD applications. Any review process that takes place outside the "normal" ICANN process could be a source of concern not only for ICANN, as an organisation, but also for organisations wishing to launch a new domain extension. If the ICANN procedures and processes can be shown to be flawed then there may be a whole range of issues for both ICANN and the applicants to deal with prior to any forward movement in the new TLDs.
So earlier this evening ICANN CEO, Rod Beckstrom, tweeted that the independent review had found in ICM's favour - with a vote of 2 - 1.
Shortly afterwards the actual decision was published on the ICANN website.
If you have the time you can plough through the entire document (about 80 pages), but the key "takeaway" from this is that ICANN has lost.
The ICANN board's decision has been shown to be flawed.
The panel states:
...the Panel finds ground for questioning the neutral and objective performance of the Board, and the consistency of its so doing with its obligation not to single out ICM Registry for disparate treatmentNot good. That strongly suggests that ICANN's board may have been influenced by external forces - in all likelihood the US government.
The rest of their findings are worth quoting, as they are very important and shine a spotlight on the inconsistencies:
The Panel concludes, for the reasons stated above, that:
First, the holdings of the Independent Review Panel are advisory in
nature; they do not constitute a binding arbitral award.
Second, the actions and decisions of the ICANN Board are not entitled
to deference whether by application of the "business judgment" rule or
otherwise; they are to be appraised not deferentially but objectively.
Third, the provision of Article 4 of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation
prescribing that ICANN "shall operate for the benefit of the Internet
community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant
principles of international law and applicable international conventions and
local law," requires ICANN to operate in conformity with relevant general
principles of law (such as good faith) as well as relevant principles of
international law, applicable international conventions, and the law of the
State of California.
Fourth, the Board of ICANN in adopting its resolutions of June 1, 2005,
found that the application of ICM Registry for the .XXX sTLD met the required
sponsorship criteria.
Fifth, the Board's reconsideration of that finding was not consistent
with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy.
Sixth, in respect of the first foregoing holding, ICANN prevails; in
respect of the second foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of
the third foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of the fourth
foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; and in respect of the fifth foregoing
holding, ICM Registry prevails. Accordingly, the prevailing party is ICM
Registry. It follows that, in pursuance of Article IV, Section 3(12) of the
Bylaws, ICANN shall be responsible for bearing all costs of the IRP Provider.
Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees. Therefore, the administrative
fees and expenses of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, totaling
$4,500.00, shall be borne entirely by ICANN, and the compensation and
expenses of the Independent Review Panel, totaling $473,744.91, shall be
borne entirely by ICANN. ICANN shall accordingly reimburse ICM Registry
with the sum of $241,372.46, representing that portion of said fees and
expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by ICM
Registry.
Note the financial portion of the judgement. ICANN, which has already had a budget overrun, gets hit again, this time for nearly half a million dollars.
You can download the full text of the review panel's decision from the ICANN website, although some sections have been redacted by ICM for reasons of confidentiality.
Since this was released on a Friday night it's unlikely that there will be much public reaction from either ICANN, ICM or any others until next week, but I suspect that there will be some very interesting discussions surrounding this decision.
Amazing how a single document can rock the boat, isn't it?
UPDATE: Since this story has attracted quite a bit of attention from ICANN observers some of their comments on Twitter and elsewhere have led to extra material worth citing. Former ICANN board member Susan Crawford made a very interesting statement about the Board's vote, which is worth reading. (Thanks to Antony Van Couvering for the link)
UPDATE 2: Milton Mueller who was one of the expert witnesses during the review of .xxx has posted on the subject as well.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e5ee6981-e128-4dfd-ae3d-7acbceff6252)
I'd love to summarise them, but there is a very large volume of information (hundreds of pages)
If you have the time to read over them all they include witness statements from Vint Cerf, Milton Mueller, Paul Twomey and several others.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5284f1ed-d844-4f6a-a23d-a8e0f2fa4063)
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “xxx”.
Recent Comments