Changes

* 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, 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>

* 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>

* 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> 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.

 

* 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, [[ICANN]]'s [[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> A 45 day public comment was opened on March 26, 2010.

* 2010- February 19th, [[ICANN]]'s [[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> A 45 day public comment was opened on March 26, 2010.