ICANN Nix on XXX (9-5)
Date: Wednesday May 10 2006, @04:58PM
Topic: gTLDs hoping to enter the legacy root

In a characteristically open and transparent meeting (i.e. a secret one), ICANN rejected the dot-xxx proposal opposed by the US and certain other governments on a 9-5 vote. In an uncharacteristic burst of speed, the official announcement is online, stating,

The application has received much public comment and detailed discussion by the ICANN Board. Reflecting the diversity of views this application has generated, the Board discussion at today's meeting focused on the criteria for the sTLD, especially for sponsorship, and the terms of the contract proposed by ICM, including compliance issues related to key terms associated with public policy concerns. ICM had proposed additional terms in response to issues raised by ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee, particularly at ICANN's meeting in Wellington in March. [URL]

ICM had requested that the ICANN Board vote on the proposed contract at this meeting.

Votes in favor of the proposed .XXX Registry Agreement were cast by the following Board Members: Veni Markovski, Susan Crawford, Peter Dengate Thrush, Joichi Ito, and Mouhamet Diop. Directors who voted against the approval were Vint Cerf (Chairman), Alejandro Pisanty (Vice-Chairman), Raimundo Beca, Demi Getschko, Hagen Hultzsch, Njeri Rionge, Vanda Scartezini, Paul Twomey (President and CEO), and Hualin Qian. Additional details regarding the vote will be provided by ICANN later this week.
In the past, in an effort to make dissenters as ineffectual as possible, ICANN has forbidden them from issuing their dissents when the decision comes out. Ostensibly this rule was intended to give non-native English speakers adequate time to prepare their statements...although cynics might note that it has the effect of ensuring that the news coverage is deprived of the dissenters' views. Was that rule applied again today? It sounds like it.

Early news story: Wall St. Journal Online: Internet Regulator Rejects Dot-XXX Domain for Adult Content. Also, for those who came in late, see this pre-vote story in the Wall St. Journal, Plan for Adult Area Sparks a Fight On Control of Web and ICANNWatch's .xxx Redux, complete with prescient illustration.

I would say that .xxx was a lousy idea, but that the people behind it followed all the rules and still lost -- but that would suggest that there are rules.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
ICANN Nix on XXX (9-5) | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 4 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Check box to change your default comment view
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
xxx nixed
by saintjohnny on Wednesday May 10 2006, @05:22PM (#16769)
User #4290 Info
So some who voted for it previously must have changed their minds. Maybe it would be better that they stated there reasons as well as the dissenters. Is the Department of Commerce persuaded me otherwise good enough!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What rules?
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday May 15 2006, @02:38PM (#16772)
User #2810 Info
I've mentioned previously, and haven't seen anyone else do so. so I'll do so once more:

ICM Registry was one of the applicants for .xxx in the original Y2K new TLD round. They were rejected along with the other .xxx applicants. Rather it was spun that failed applications were still pending.

Then, during this last tepid new TLD round, ICM again applied for .xxx and again paid the onerous application fees which ICANN accepted, thereby putting the lie to their assertion that formerly failed applicants were still pending.

And now ICANN nixes it by twisting its own rules again and keeps both application fees. Seems to me that ICM would have a cause of action to recover at least the latter set of fees if not both because of lack of due process, as well as the no doubt inconsiderate funds spent on the application(s) and perhaps additional monies. I'd sure like to see them try because it would help to further expose ICANN to public scrutiny, and as would naturally follow, further disrespect, nay, disgust. -g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • This article comes from ICANNWatch

    The URL for this story is: