Accountability and Transparency at ICANN · the creation of new gTLDs would be desirable, in light of intellectual property rights and other issues.6 On April 19, 2000, the DNSO recommended

AccountabilityandTransparencyatICANNAnIndependentReview

AppendixD:The.xxxDomainCaseandICANNDecision‐MakingProcesses

October20,2010

AccountabilityandTransparencyatICANN:AnIndependentReview AppendixD:The.xxxDomainCaseandICANNDecision‐MakingProcesses

{1}

Abstract

In2000,ICANNinitiateda“proofofconcept”stagetobegintheadoptionofnewgenericTLDs.ICMRegistryunsuccessfullyproposed.xxxand.kids.In2003,aftersomeexchangeswithICANNregardingitsfirstproposal,ICMsubmittedarevisedbidforthecreationof.xxxforICANN’scallforsponsoredTLDproposals.TheICANNBoardadoptedaresolutiontobeginnegotiatingthecommercialandtechnicaltermsofaregistryagreementwithICMinJune2005;however,underpressurefromavarietyofconstituencies,ICANNreverseditsdecisionanddeniedICM’sproposalin2007.ICMfiledarequestforIndependentReviewin2008—thefirstsuchrequesttobeheardbeforetheIndependentReviewPanel(IRP)inICANN’shistory.In2010,athree‐personpanelofarbiters(whichcomprisedtheIRP)decidedinfavorofICM.

Thiscasestudyoutlinesthekeyeventssurroundingthe.xxxproposalsfrom2000toJune17,2010,withoutre‐examiningthemeritsoftheapplicationitself.Thischronologyisdesignedtoexaminetwospecificdimensionsofthe.xxxprocess:(1)theroleoftheIndependentReviewPanel(IRP),and(2)theinteractionbetweentheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)andtheICANNBoardduringICANN’sevaluationoftheICM.xxxproposal,registryagreementnegotiationswithICMand,ultimaterejectionofICM’sapplication.

CaseStudySourcesandMethodology

Formoreinformationonoursourcesandmethodology,pleaseseeAppendixA.

Thiscasestudyisbasedonpubliclyavailablematerials,includingpubliccomments,ICANNdocuments,academicstudies,mediareports,andexpertopinions.Itprovidesasummaryofthefactsregardingthe.xxxdomainprocess,withaspecificfocusontwoaspectsofthecase:theIndependentReviewPanel(IRP),includingICM’srequestforIndepentReview,andtheroleoftheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)throughouttheBoard’sreviewofthe.xxxproposals,includingitsinteractionwiththeBoard.AsperExhibitB,Section1oftheServicesAgreementbetweentheBerkmanCenterandICANN,itsgoalistohelpidentifykeyissues,challengesandareasofdisagreementrelatedtothe.xxxapplicationprocess.TheobservationsbelowwillcontributetotheBerkmanteam’sfinalreport.

Inadditiontopubliclyavailablesources,thiscasestudyincludesstatements,opinionsandperceptionsofthoseweinterviewedinthecourseofdevelopingthiscase.TheseperceptionsandopinionsplayanimportantroleintheinterpretationofICANNdecisionsandtheirreceptionbythecommunity.Thestatementsofintervieweesdonotreflecttheopinionsorconclusionsofthestudyteam.Whilewehavemadeeveryefforttoremovefactualinaccuracies,wedonotattesttotheaccuracyoftheopinionsofferedbyinterviewees.Theinterviewswereconductedontheconditionofconfidentially.

Note:AspertheServicesAgreement,thiscasestudyfocusesoneventspriortoJune17,2010.However,aspectsofthe.xxxcasearestillevolving.Assuch,thisstudymaynotreflectthemostrecentdevelopmentsinthiscase.


{2}

Disclosure:ProfessorJackGoldsmith,HenryL.ShattuckProfessorofLaw,BerkmanCenterFacultyCo‐DirectorandmemberoftheBerkmanteam,hassubmittedtestimonyforICMinthe.xxxcase.InthecontextoftheBerkman‐internalpeerreviewprocess,heprovidedcommentsonthescopeandstructureofanearlierdraftofthiscasestudy.


{3}

TableofContents

1ICM’SPROPOSALFORTHE.XXXSTLD ................................................................................................. 4

1.1ICANN’SCALLFORNEWGTLDSIN2000.............................................................................................................. 4

1.1.1Overviewofthe“ProofofConcept”Round.................................................................................................4

1.1.2ICM’sProposalfor.xxxand.kids ....................................................................................................................5

1.2ICANN’SREQUESTFORPROPOSALSFORNEWSTLDSIN2003......................................................................... 7

1.2.1OverviewoftheRFP.............................................................................................................................................7

1.2.2ICM’sProposalfor.xxx........................................................................................................................................9

1.2.3ICANN’sReviewandInitialApproval...........................................................................................................9

2INVOLVEMENTOFTHEGACINTHE.XXXPROCESS.......................................................................10

2.1THEROLEOFTHEGACINICANN...........................................................................................................................10

2.2THEROLEOFTHEGACINTHE.XXXPROCESS:2004 ..........................................................................................12

2.3THEROLEOFTHEGACINTHE.XXXPROCESS:2005 ..........................................................................................13

2.4THEROLEOFTHEGACINTHE.XXXPROCESS:2006...........................................................................................18

2.5THEROLEOFTHEGACINTHE.XXXPROCESS:2007...........................................................................................23

2.6PERCEPTIONSOFTHEGAC’SROLEINTHE.XXXPROCESSBASEDONBERKMANCASESTUDYINTERVIEWS...............................................................................................................................................................................................26

3THEINDEPENDENTREVIEWPANEL:ICMV.ICANN ......................................................................27

3.1INDEPENDENTREVIEWREQUESTSANDTHEINDEPENDENTREVIEWPANELINICANN’SBYLAWS............27

3.2ICM’SREQUESTFORINDEPENDENTREVIEW........................................................................................................28

3.3ICANN’SRESPONSETOICM’SREQUESTFORINDEPENDENTREVIEW.............................................................30

3.4ESTABLISHINGTHEIRPPROCESS............................................................................................................................32

3.5MEMORIALONTHEMERITS,WITNESSSTATEMENTS,ANDEXPERTREPORTS ................................................33

3.6THEIRP’SDECLARATION ..........................................................................................................................................33

3.7IRPPROCESSOBSERVATIONSBASEDONBERKMANCASESTUDYINTERVIEWS .............................................34


{4}

1ICM’sProposalforthe.xxxsTLD

1.1ICANN’sCallforNewgTLDsin2000

1.1.1Overviewofthe“ProofofConcept”Round

ThecoreofICANN’smissionis“tocoordinate,attheoveralllevel,theglobalInternet’ssystemofuniqueidentifiers,”amandatethatincludesresponsibilityfortheallocationofdomainnamesandmanagementoftheDomainNameSystem(DNS).1Sincethe1980s,seventop‐leveldomains(TLDs)havebeenintheDNS(.com,.edu,.gov,.int,.mil,.net,and.org),onlythreeofwhichwereavailableforpublicregistrationwithoutrestriction(.com,.net,and.org).2Fromtheoutset,oneofICANN’sprimarytaskswastodevelopasetofpoliciesandbestpracticesforthesolicitation,creation,andmanagementofnewgenericTLDs(gTLDs).3

TheDomainNameSupportingOrganization(DNSO),oneofICANN’soriginalthreesupportingorganizations(whichwasreplacedbytheGenericNamesSupportingOrganization(GNSO)inDecember2002),4wasresponsibleformakingrecommendationsonthe“operation,assignment,andmanagementofthedomainnamesystemandotherrelatedsubjects.”5In1999,theDNSOtaskedasetofworkinggroupswithstudyingwhetherthecreationofnewgTLDswouldbedesirable,inlightofintellectualpropertyrightsandotherissues.6OnApril19,2000,theDNSOrecommendedthattheICANNBoarddevelopasetofpoliciestoguidetheintroductionofa“limitednumber”ofnewgTLDs.7TheICANNBoardadoptedthisrecommendationonJuly16,20008andbeganacceptingTLDapplicationsonSeptember5,2000,withthegoalofcompletingregistrynegotiationsbytheendoftheyear.9Applicantswerepermittedtosubmitproposalsfor

1ICANNBylaws,ArticleI,Section1,September30,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive‐bylaws/bylaws‐30sep09‐en.htm.2ICANN,“Top‐LevelDomains(gTLDs),”May6,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds.OneotherspecializedTLDhadalsobeenimplemented:.arpa,whichisreservedtosupporttheInternetArchitectureBoard’stechnicalinfrastructureprojects(seehttp://www.iana.org/domains/arpa/).Morethan250country‐codeTLDs(ccTLDs)alsoexist,ahandfulofwhicharewritteninnon‐LatincharactersandarecategorizedasInternationalizedDomainNames(IDNs).3SeeICANN,“Top‐LevelDomains(gTLDs),”May6,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds.4TheDNSOwaseventuallysucceededbytheGenericNamesSupportingOrganizations(GNSO)in2003.SeeDNSO,http://www.dnso.org/5ICANNBylaws,ArticleVII,Section3(a),November6,1998,http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive‐bylaws/bylaws‐06nov98.htm.6A1999WIPOreportstatedthatnewgTLDscouldbeintroducedslowlyifintellectualpropertyrightsreceivedadequateprotection;seeICANN,“TheManagementofInternetNamesandAddresses:IntellectualPropertyIssues,”April30,1999,http://www.icann.org/en/wipo/FinalReport_1.html.TheDNSO’sWorkingGroupsBandCwereestablishedtoaddresstheWIPOreportandotherintellectualpropertyconcerns;seeDNSO,“MeetingoftheNamesCouncilinSanJoseon25June1999,”June25,1999,http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj‐admin.html.7DNSO,“DNSONamesCouncilStatementonnewgTLDs,”April19,2000,http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds‐statement.html.8ICANN,“ResolutionsoftheICANNBoardonNewTLDs,”July16,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/new‐tld‐resolutions‐16jul00.htm.9ICANN,“NewTLDApplicationProcessOverview,”August3,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/application‐process‐03aug00.htm.


{5}

eithera“sponsoredTLD”(sTLD)oran“unsponsoredTLD”10andeachapplicationwasrequiredtosatisfyninecriteria:

1. TheneedtomaintaintheInternet’sstability.

2. Theextenttowhichselectionoftheproposalwouldleadtoaneffective“proofofconcept”concerningtheintroductionofTLDsinthefuture.

3. Theenhancementofcompetitionforregistrationservices.

4. TheenhancementoftheutilityoftheDNS.

5. Theextenttowhichtheproposalwouldmeetpreviouslyunmettypesofneeds.

6. TheextenttowhichtheproposalwouldenhancethediversityoftheDNSandofregistrationservicesgenerally.

7. Theevaluationofdelegationofpolicy‐formulationfunctionsforspecial‐purposeTLDstoappropriateorganizations.

8. AppropriateprotectionsofrightsofothersinconnectionwiththeoperationoftheTLD.

9. Thecompletenessoftheproposalssubmittedandtheextenttowhichtheydemonstraterealisticbusiness,financial,technical,andoperationalplansandsoundanalysisofmarketneeds.11

“General‐Purpose”TLDproposalsweregroupedintofourcategories:“General”(fornonspecificproposals,including.bizand.info),“Personal”(forpersonalcontent,including.nameand.san),“RestrictedContent”(forspecifictypesofcontent,including.xxxand.kids),and“RestrictedCommercial”(including.lawand.travel).12

1.1.2ICM’sProposalfor.xxxand.kids

ICANNreceived47applicationswithproposalsfornewsponsoredandunsponsoredTLDs.13Threeorganizationssubmittedproposalsfor.xxx,14includingICMRegistry,Inc.(ICM),whichappliedtocreate.xxxand.kids,arguingthat,together,thepairofnewTLDswouldenhance

10SponsoredTLDs(sTLDs)areintendedtorepresenttheneedsofaparticular“sponsoredcommunity,”andarerequiredthesupportofa“sponsoringorganization”toberesponsibleforadefinedlevelofpolicyformulationforoperationofthedomain.Unsponsoreddomainsdonotcarryeitheroftheserequirements.SeeICANN,“NewTLDApplicationProcessOverview,”August3,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/application‐process‐03aug00.htm.11ICANN,“CriteriaforAssessingTLDProposals,”August15,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/tld‐criteria‐15aug00.htm.12ICANN,“ReportonNewTLDApplications,”November9,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/report/.Inadditionto“General‐PurposeTLDs,”ICANNalsogroupedproposalsas“Special‐Purpose”(synonymouswith“sponsored”)and“NewServices”(whichwasintendedfortechnicalservicesnotcurrentlysupportedbytheexistingDNS,includingtelephony,messagerouting,LDAPservices,and“georeferencedinformation.”13ICANN,“TLDApplicationsLodged,”October10,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/tld‐applications‐lodged‐02oct00.htm.14ICANN,“TLDApplicationsLodged,”October10,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/tld‐applications‐lodged‐02oct00.htm.


{6}

onlinechildsafetybyclearlydelineatingchild‐friendlyandadult‐onlycontentareas.15ICMalsocontendedthatboththeadultindustryandchild‐friendlycontentproducerswouldcomplywithICM’spoliciesvoluntarily,claimingthat“adultcontentleadersfullybacktheestablishmentoftheseTLDs”andthat“eminentchildren’sentertainmentandeducationalorganizationsarepromisingextensiveinvestmentsinthechild‐friendlydomain.”16

Outofthese47applications,ICANNselectedsevenduringtheexploratoryphase:fourunsponsoredTLDs(.biz,.info,.name,.pro)andthreesponsored(.aero,.coop,.museum).17InapplyingtheevaluationcriteriatoICM’s.xxxapplication,ICANNdeterminedthatICM’sproposalfora.kidsTLDdidmeetunmetneedsbutwasunlikelytosucceedfromabusinessstandpoint.18ICANNalsofoundthatICMdidnotpropose“anybusinessortechnicalmethodstoeffectivelyrestrictcontentfora.kidsTLD.”19Regarding.xxx,ICANNstated:“[It]doesnotappeartomeetunmetneeds.AdultcontentisreadilyavailableontheInternet.Totheextentthatsomebelievethatan.xxxTLDwouldsegregateadultcontent,nomechanism(technicalornon‐technical)existstorequireadultcontenttomigratefromexistingTLDstoan.xxxTLD.”ICANNalsonotedthatthecontroversialnatureofasex‐centricTLDmadeitill‐suitedtothegoalsofthe“proofofconcept”phase:“theevaluationteamconcludedthatatthisearly‘proofofconcept’stagewithalimitednumberofnewTLDscontemplated,otherproposedTLDswithoutthecontroversyofanadultTLDwouldbetterservethegoalsofthisinitialintroductionofnewTLDs.”20

Ultimately,ICANNdecidedtonotacceptICM’sproposalsfor.xxxand.kids,providingthefollowingjustification:

Becauseoftheinadequaciesintheproposedtechnicalandbusinessmeasurestoactuallypromotekidfriendlycontent,theevaluationteamdoesnotrecommendselectinga.kidsdomaininthecurrentphaseoftheTLDprogram.Inaddition,becauseofthecontroversysurrounding,andpoordefinitionofthehopedforbenefitsof,.xxx,wealsorecommendagainstitsselectionatthistime.21

Inresponse,ICMfiledaReconsiderationRequestonDecember15,2000,requesting“clarificationfromtheBoardwithrespecttoinaccuratestatementsmadeinvolving[the.xxx]registry

15ICANN,“RegistryOperator’sProposaltoICANN,”September18,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/kids3/Default.htm.ICM’sapplicationalsohypothesizedthattheadultorientedcontentonotherdomains(e.g.,affiliatedsites)couldbeeasilyfilteredbyIPaddressesandproprietaryDNSlistingsinadditiontofilteringthe.xxxcontent.Ibid.16ICANN,“RegistryOperator’sProposaltoICANN:Volume2,”September18,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/kids3/HTML/Volume_2.html.17ICANN,“SecondAnnualMeetingoftheBoardMinutes,”November16,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐annual‐meeting‐16nov00.htm.18ICANN,“ReportonTLDApplications:ApplicationoftheAugust15CriteriatoEachCategoryorGroup,”November9,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/report/report‐iiib1c‐09nov00.htm.19ICANN,“ReportonTLDApplications:ApplicationoftheAugust15CriteriatoEachCategoryorGroup,”November9,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/report/report‐iiib1c‐09nov00.htm.20Ibid.21Ibid.


{7}

proposal.”22Primarily,ICMtookissuewiththeICANNBoard’sclaimthatthemajorityoftheadultcommunitydidnotsupportthecreationof.xxx,andarguedthat“most”adultcontentproviderssupportedthedomain.ICMalsomaintainedthatitproposedtooperatethe.kidsregistry“onlyintheeventthattherewasnoothercrediblesubmissionfora.kidsregistry.”23Finally,ICMdisagreedwiththeTLDevaluators’conclusionthat.xxxdidnotmeetan“unmetneed,”arguingthattheproliferationofonlineadultmaterialnecessitatedthecreationofthekindofdomainpoliciesICMhadproposed.

TheReconsiderationCommitteedecidedtotakenoaction,stating,“ICMRegistry’sreconsiderationrequestdoesnotseekreconsiderationoftheBoard’sNovember16,2000decision...accordingly,thereisnoactionfortheBoardtotakewithrespecttotheBoard’sactualdecisionatthistime.”24Itnotedthat“nonewTLDproposalhasbeenrejectedbyICANN”;rather,asmallsetofpotentiallysuccessfulapplicantshadbeenselectedwiththeaimoftestingadiversityofapproachestothecreationofnewTLDs.TheCommitteealsonotedthat“thefactthatanewTLDproposalwasnotselectedunderthosecircumstancesshouldnotbeinterpretedasanegativereflectionontheproposaloritssponsor.”25

1.2ICANN’sRequestforProposalsforNewsTLDsin2003

1.2.1OverviewoftheRFP

OnOctober18,2002,ICANNPresidentStuartLynnissuedareporttitled“APlanforActionRegardingNewTLDs,”whichadvocatedextendingthe“proofofconcept”phasebyallowingapplicantswhohadparticipatedinthe2000roundtoresubmittheirTLDproposals.26OnDecember15,2002,inresponsetothe“PlanforAction,”theICANNBoarddirectedICANNstafftodevelopastrategyforsolicitingfurtherTLDapplications.27ThisresultedinadraftRequestforProposals(RFP)forthecreationofnewsponsoredTLDs,postedpubliclyonJune24,2003.28

The2003RFPdifferedfromthe2000“proofofconcept”solicitationintwoimportantways.First,itwasrestrictedtoproposalsforsponsoredTLDs.Applicantswererequiredtodemonstratethat

22ICANN,“ReconsiderationRequest00‐15,”December16,2000,http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/icm‐request‐16dec00.htm.ICANN’sReconsiderationPolicy(whichhassincebeensuperseded)hadbeenestablishedtoimplementArticleIII,Section4(a)oftheoriginalBylaws.ICANN,“ReconsiderationPolicy,”March4,1999,http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/recon‐policy‐04mar99.htm.23See“ReconsiderationRequest,”Ibid.24AlthoughunclearintheRecommendation,itappearstheReconsiderationCommittee’smandateisonlytoreconsiderdecisionsandissuerecommendations,ratherthanclarifyBoarddecisions.SeeICANN,“ReconsiderationRequest00‐15:RecommendationoftheCommittee(Revised),”September7,2001,http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/rc00‐15‐1.htm.25Ibid.26ICANN,“APlanforActionRegardingNewTLDs,”October18,2002,http://www.icann.org/en/committees/ntepptf/new‐gtld‐action‐plan‐18oct02.htm.27ICANN,“ICANN2002AnnualMeetinginAmsterdam,”December14–15,2002,http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/amsterdam.28ICANN,“EstablishmentofnewsTLDs:RequestforProposals(Draftforpubliccomment),”June24,2003,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/new‐stld‐rfp/new‐stld‐rfp‐24jun03.htm.


{8}

thesTLDservedtheneedsofawell‐defined“sponsoredcommunity,”andtheproposalwasrequiredtocarrythesupportofa“sponsoringorganization,”whichwouldassumecertainresponsibilitiesindevelopingpoliciesfortheTLD.Second,theICANNBoardwouldnotevaluateapplicationsdirectly.Rather,applicationsweretobeevaluatedbyseveralpanelsofindependentevaluatorswhowouldsubmitreportsoneachproposaltotheICANNBoard;thereports,whilenonbinding,wereintendedtoplayasignificantroleinshapingtheBoard’sdecisions.29

OnJune25,2003—thedayafterthedraftRFPwaspostedforpubliccomment—ICANNheldapublicdiscussiononthedraftmaterialsduringaPublicForuminMontréal.Somecommentersarguedthatasingledaywasinadequateforpublicreview,particularlygiventhecontroversythatpersistedaroundtheproposedTLDpolicies.30Onthefollowingday,theICANNBoardresolvedtoextendthepubliccommentperiodfortwomonths,throughAugust25,2003.31

ICANNreceivedmorethan70responsesbyemail,whichitpostedpubliclyduringthecommentperiod.32TheAt‐LargeAdvisoryCommittee(ALAC)alsosubmittedaformalresponse,recommendingsubstantivechangestomaketheRFPmoreequitableandproposingasetofprinciplestoguidetheintroductionoffuturegTLDs.33

OnOctober13,2003,theICANNBoarddecideditwouldtemporarilyshelvethesTLDapplicationprocess,citingtheconstraintsoftherecentamendmentstotheMemorandumofUnderstandingwiththeUnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerce—particularlytherequirementthatICANNquickly“commenceafullscalereviewofpolicyinthisarea.”34TheGenericNamesSupportingOrganization(GNSO)35stronglyobjected,however,andonOctober31,2003,theICANNBoardreverseditsdecisionandresolvedtomoveforwardwiththesTLDRFP.Additionally,theBoardresolvedtorevisethetermsoftheRFPbasedoncommentaryfromtheALAC,theGNSO,andthepublicatlarge.Specifically,itresolvedthattheRFPwouldnotbelimitedtoapplicantswhohadsubmittedproposalsduringthe2000“proofofconcept”roundandthateligiblesponsoringorganizationsneednotbenot‐for‐profitentities.Finally,itresolvedthatafinalversionoftheRFPwouldbepostedonDecember15,2003,includinganapplicationtimeline,thedetailsoftheselectioncriteria,andanexplanationoftheevaluationprocess.36

29Ibid.SeealsoICANN,“IndependentEvaluatorsofsTLDProposals,”http://icann.org/en/tlds/new‐stld‐rfp/panel.htm.30SeeEdwardHasbrouck,“SponsoredTLDRFP,”June26,2003,http://hasbrouck.org/icann/montreal.html.31ICANN,“PreliminaryReport:RegularMeetingoftheBoard‐Montréal,”June26,2003,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim‐report‐26jun03.htm.32ICANN,“Submissionstothestld‐rfp‐commentsforum,”http://forum.icann.org/mtg‐cmts/stld‐rfp‐comments/general/threads.html(nodate).33ICANN,“ALACResponsetotheProposedsTLDRFPandSuggestedPrinciplesforNewTLDProcesses,”October9,2003,http://forum.icann.org/mtg‐cmts/stld‐rfp‐comments/general/msg00067.html.34ICANN,“PreliminaryReport:SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”October13,2003,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim‐report‐13oct03.htm.35Asof2003,theGNSObecamethesuccessortotheDNSO.SeeDNSOwebsite,http://www.dnso.org.36ICANN,“ICANNBoardResolutionsinCarthage,Tunisia,”October31,2003,http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory‐31oct03.htm.ThefinalversionofthesTLDRFPisavailableatICANN,“NewsTLDApplication,”December15,2003,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/new‐stld‐rfp/new‐stld‐application‐parta‐15dec03.htm.


{9}

1.2.2ICM’sProposalfor.xxx

ICMsubmittedits.xxxsTLDproposalonMarch16,2004.ICMnamedthe“onlineadult‐entertainmentcommunity”asthesponsoringcommunity,definingthiscommunityas“thoseindividuals,businesses,andentitiesthatprovidesexually‐orientedinformation,services,orproductsintendedforconsentingadultsorforthecommunityitself.”37ICMnamedtheInternationalFoundationforOnlineResponsibility(IFFOR)asitssponsoringorganization.38TheroleofIFFOR,aCanadiannon‐profit,wouldbetoprotectchildsafety,guardthesafetyandprivacyofusers,andpromoteresponsiblebusinesspracticesintheadultindustry.Accordingtotheproposal,ICMintendedtodonateacertainportionofeachdomainregistrationfeetopromoteIFFOR’spolicymakingandadvocacyefforts.39

1.2.3ICANN’sReviewandInitialApproval

OnMarch19,2004,ICANNpubliclyannouncedthatithadrecivedtensTLDapplicationsinresponsetoitsRFP:.asia,.cat,.jobs,.mail,.mobi,.post,.tel(NetNumber,Inc),.tel(TelnicLtd.),.travel,and.xxx.Thisannouncementincludedinvitationstopostcommentsonspecificproposals,inadditiontoasolicitationforgeneralpubliccomments.ItalsonotedthatthepubliccommentperiodwouldbeopenduringthemonthofApril2004andthatapplicationswouldbereviewedbyindependentevaluatorsbeginninginMayofthatyear.40

Inmid‐July2004,theindependentevaluatorssentreportsonthetenapplicationstoICANNindicatingthatonly.catand.postsatisfiedthefullrangeofevaluationcriteria.41ThereportdeclaredthatICM’sproposalsatisfiedthetechnical,business,andfinancialcriteria,butfellshortofmeetingthesponsorshipcriteria.42Inparticular,thereportstatedthat“thedifficultyofestablishingacleandefinitionofadultcontentmakesitequallydifficulttoestablishthecontoursoftheadultcommunity.Theydetermined,moreover,thatICM“hypothesizesasetofinterestsonbehalfofacommunity...butlittletestimonyfromthatcommunityhasbeenprovidedinsupportofeitheritscommoninterestsoritscohesiveness.”43Finally,theevaluatorsnotethatalthoughtherewassignificantsupportfortheproposalfromtheNorthAmericancommunity,“virtuallynosupportwasavailablefromtherestoftheworld.”44

37ICANN,“NewsTLDRFPApplication:.xxx,”March16,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/xxx.htm.38ICANN,“NewsTLDRFPApplication:.xxx,”March16,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/xxx.htm.39Ibid.40ICANN,“ProgressinProcessforIntroducingNewSponsoredTop‐LevelDomains,”March19,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement‐19mar04.htm.Seealso,ICANN,“PublicCommentsforProposedSponsoredTop‐LevelDomains,”March31,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/stld‐public‐comments.htm.41SeeICANN,“StatusReportonthesTLDApplicationProcess,”December3,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/stld‐status‐report.pdf.42Ibid.43Ibid.44Ibid.,24–25.


{10}

ICANNannouncedthatitwouldallowsTLDapplicantstoprovidesupplementalmaterialinresponsetotheindependentevaluators’concerns.45FromOctoberthroughNovember2004,ICMsubmittedarangeofsupplementalapplicationmaterial,primarilyaddressingthe.xxxproposal’sdeficienciesregardingsponsorshipcriteria.46

2InvolvementoftheGACinthe.xxxProcess

2.1TheRoleoftheGACinICANN

AccordingtotheICANNBylaws,47oneoftheprimarypurposesoftheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)isto“considerandprovideadviceontheactivitiesofICANNastheyrelatetoconcernsofgovernments,particularlymatterswheretheremaybeaninteractionbetweenICANN’spoliciesandvariouslaws,andinternationalagreementsorwheretheymayaffectpublicpolicyissues.”48

TheGACmaysubmit“issuestotheBoarddirectly,eitherbywayofcommentorprioradvice,orbywayofspecificallyrecommendingactionornewpolicydevelopmentorrevisiontoexistingpolicies.”49Apartfromreceivingunsolicitedadviceorcomment,theBoardisrequiredto“notifytheChairoftheGACinatimelymannerofanyproposalraisingpublicpolicyissuesonwhichitoranyofICANN’ssupportingorganizationsseekspubliccomment.”50Separately,theBoardisrequiredto“requesttheopinion”oftheGACincaseswhere“policyactionaffectspublicpolicyconcerns”andthepolicybeingconsideredforadoption“substantiallyaffect[s]theoperationoftheInternetorthirdparties.”51

Regardlessofwhethersolicitedornot,anyGACadvice“onpublicpolicymatters”triggersaBylawprovisionwherebytheBoardisrequiredtotakesuchadviceintoaccount“bothintheformulationandadoptionofpolicies.”52IftheBoarddecidesnottofollowthisadvice,theBoardisthenrequiredtonotifytheGACand“statethereasonswhyitdecidednottodoso”and“try,in

45ICANN,“ICANNMeetingsinKualaLumpur,”July23,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/kualalumpur/captioning‐public‐forum‐23jul04.htm.46ICANN,“AppendixE–Supplemental/Follow‐upMaterials,”November30,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/AppE‐30nov05.pdf.47ICANNBylaws,August5,2010,http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.ICANN’sBylawshavebeenamended26timesfromtheoriginalBylaws.ArchivesofpreviousversionsareavailableontheICANNwebsiteathttp://www.icann.org/en/general/archive‐bylaws.48Ibid.,ArticleXI,Section2.1(a).ICANN’soriginalBylawsdidnotincludethephrase“wheretheymayaffectpublicpolicyissues,”whichwasappendedtotheoriginalin2002.ICANNBylaws,ArticleXI,Section2.1(a),November6,1998,http://www.icann.org/en/general/archive‐bylaws/bylaws‐06nov98.htm.49Ibid.,ArticleXI,Section2.1(i).Itisunclearwhethertheterms“comment”and“advice”aredistinctconceptsandareintendedtohavedifferentmeaning.50Ibid.,ArticleXI,Section2.1(h).51Ibid.,ArticleIII,Section6.1(c).Althoughthisprovisiondoesusetheterm“advice,”whichbyitselfisconsistentwiththeuseinArticleXI,Section2.1;“advice”appearstobeusedinterchangeablywith“opinion.”Consequently,theprecisescopeofthisprovisionisunclear,especiallywithregardtohowitinterplayswithArticleXI,Section2.1.52Ibid.,ArticleXI,Section2.1(j).UnliketheotherprovisionsinArticleXI,thisprovisionusestheterm“adviceoftheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee”explicitly.ThisappearstosuggestthatthecircumstanceswheretheBoard’srequirementtogivenoticeandexplanationofactionsinconsistentwithadviceislimited;however,itissomewhatunclearifthatwastheintendedpurposeofthisprovision.


{11}

goodfaithandinatimelyandefficientmanner,tofindamutuallyacceptablesolution.”53IfnosolutionisreachedbetweentheBoardandtheGAC,theBoardisrequiredto“stateinitsfinaldecisionthereasonswhy”theadvicewasnotfollowed.

TheICANNBylawsalsopermittheGACto“appointonenon‐votingliaisontotheICANNBoardofDirectors.”54TheGACLiaisontotheBoardis“entitledtoattendBoardMeetings,participateinBoarddiscussionsanddeliberations.”TheLiaisonhas“access(underconditionsestablishedbytheBoard)tomaterialsprovidedtoDirectorsforuseinBoarddiscussions”andmay“useanymaterialsprovidedtothempursuanttothisSectionforthepurposeofconsultingwiththeirrespectivecommittee.”55TheindividualelectedastheGACChairhasbeenconsistentlyappointedtothepositionofGACLiaisontotheBoard.AlthoughnotdescribedwithintheICANNBylawsortheGACOperatingPrinciples, 56intervieweesstatedthattheGACLiaisontotheBoardisgenerallyexpectedtobrieftheBoardonissuesofconcernamongstGACmembers.57Inaddition,intervieweesindicatedthattheBoardbelievesthepresenceoftheGACChairatBoardMeetings,evenifinthecapacityofaLiaisontotheBoard,satisfiesthe“notification”requirementforproposalsraisingpublicpolicyissueswithoutadditionalcommunications.58OtherintervieweesquestionedthispracticeandstatedthatthisinterpretationoftheBylawswasnotsharedbyGACmembers.59

AccordingtotheGACOperatingPrinciples,theGACadvisestheBoardonmattersrelatingto“governments,multinationalgovernmentorganizationsandtreatyorganizations,anddistincteconomiesasrecognizedininternationalfora.”60TheOperatingPrinciplesreflecttheGAC’sinternaloperatingprinciplesandprocedures,however,thearticulationswithinthisdocumentarenotnecessarilybindingontheICANNBoard.61TheOperatingPrinciplesspecificallystatethat“advicefromtheGACtotheBoardiscommunicatedthroughtheChair.”62WhentheGACisunabletoreachaconsensus,theChairisrequiredto“conveythefullrangeofviewexpressedbyMemberstotheBoard.”63

53Ibid.,ArticleXI,Section2.1(j).54Ibid.,ArticleVI,Section9.1(a)andArticleXI,Section2.1(g).55Ibid.,ArticleVI,Section9.5.56TheICANNBylawscontainaprovisionwhichpermitstheGACtoadopt“itsowncharterandinternaloperatingprinciplesorprocedurestoguideitsoperations.”ThisprovisionappearstobemanifestedbytheGACOperatingPrinciples.GACOperatingPrinciples,March2010,http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_Operating_Principles_1.pdf.Importantly,theOperatingPrinciplesnotethattheICANNBylawsareauthoritativeoveranydifferences“ininterpretationbetweentheprinciplessetoutintheseOperatingPrinciplesandICANN’sArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws.”SeealsoGACOperatingPrinciples,ArticleXV,Principle54.57Interviews,SeptemberandOctober2010.58Ibid.59Ibid.60GACOperatingPrinciples,ArticleI,Principle1,March2010.61Ibid.,ArticleXV,Principle54.62Ibid.,ArticleXII,Principle46.63Ibid.,ArticleXII,Principle47.


{12}

2.2TheRoleoftheGACinthe.xxxProcess:2004

BetweenICM’ssubmissionofits.xxxproposalonMarch19,2004andthesubmissionoftheindependentevaluators’reportonJuly13,2004,thereislittledocumenteddiscussionofthesTLDapplicationsduringICANNBoardandGACmeetings.64Followingreceiptofthisreport,theBoarddeterminedthatsTLDapplicantswouldbepermittedtosubmitsupplementalinformationtoaddresstheevaluators’concerns,begininginAugust2004.ICMbegansubmittingsupplementalmaterialsinOctober2004.65

OnOctober18,2004,theICANNBoardheldthefirstmeetingsinceJuly2004duringwhichadiscussionofthesTLDswasdocumented.Thecorrespondingmeetingminutesindicatethat“KurtPritz,theICANNVicePresidentofBusinessOperations[,]providedadetailedsummaryofthecurrentprocessofandstatusregardingthetensponsoredtop‐leveldomainapplicants”andPaulTwomey,ICANN’sPresidentandCEO,alsoprovidedinformationonthesTLDapplicants.66MohamedSharilTarmizi,ChairmanoftheGAC,waspresentduringthismeetingasthe“GACLiaison.”67NocorrespondingresolutionsweremadebytheBoardatthismeeting.68AnothermeetingwasheldonNovember15,2004.69Theminutesnotethat“KurtPritzagainprovidedanupdateonthestatusoftheprocessforeachoftheten[sTLD]applicants,”andtherewasa“limiteddiscussionbytheBoardregardingtheprocesspoints,”butnoresultingresolutions.70

Inafive‐pagelettertoTarmizi,datedDecember1,2004,Dr.Twomeyrequested“inputfromtheGAConthepublicpolicyelements”onseveralissuespendingbeforetheBoard.71Twomeyalsoobserverdthat,“itseemstomethattheinteractionbetweentheGACandICANNstaffwouldmeritfromsomeincreaseinintensity”andsuggested“establish[ing]aGACpositionfortransmissiontotheBoardonthepublicpolicyelements”ofissuespendingbeforetheICANNBoard.72Twomeyalsonotedinthisletterthat“itmaybeworthwhileconsideringhowthe

64BetweenMarchandJuly2004,boththeBoardandtheGACheldmeetings,butdidnotdiscussthesTLDapplicationsinsignificantdetail.TheBoardheldmeetingsonApril19,May11,May21,May25,andJune29,2004.SeeICANN,“2004BoardMeetingMinutes,”2004,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index‐2004.html.TheGACheldmeetingsonFebruary29–March3,andJuly17–20,2004.SeeGAC,“GACMeetings,”http://gac.icann.org/meetings.SeeICANN,“StatusReportonthesTLDEvaluationProcess,”December3,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/stld‐status‐report.pdf;IndependentEvaluators,“EvaluationReportonNewsTLDApplications,”July12,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/PostAppD.pdf.65ICANN,“AppendixE–Supplemental/Follow‐upMaterials,”November,30,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/stld‐apps‐19mar04/AppE‐30nov05.pdf.66ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoardMinutes,”October18,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐18oct04.htm.67Ibid.AliaisontotheBoardisanon‐votingmember,whoispermittedtoattendBoardmeetings.TheBylawsspecifythattheGACmustappointthepositionofliaisonannually.SeeICANNBylawsArt.VI.Sec.9.68ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoardMinutes,”October18,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐18oct04.htm.68ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoardMinutes,”October18,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐18oct04.htm.69ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoardMinutes,”November15,2004,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐15nov04.htm.70Ibid.71PaulTwomeytoMohamedSharilTarmizi,ICANNCorrespondence,December,12004,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey‐to‐tarmizi‐01dec04.pdf.72Ibid.


{13}

interactioncouldbeincreasedbetweentheGACandtheotherSupportingOrganizationsandAdvisoryCommitteesforthemutualbenefitofbothsides.”73

ThenextsectionofthisletterlaidouttheissuespendingbeforetheBoardforwhichTwomeyrequestedGACinput.Inthefollowingparagraph,TwomeyoutlinedthestatusofthesTLDapplications:

ICANNcontinuestomoveforwardonthree(3)frontsintheareaofgenericTopLevelDomains.Firstofall,followingthe10applicationsfornewsponsoredTLD’s(sTLDs)andtheevaluationoftheirbidsbyindependentevaluators,wehavecommencedcontractnegotiationswiththeapplicantsfor.TRAVELand.POST.Inparallel,theapplicantsarerespondingtothereportsoftheindependentevaluators,andinsomeinstancehaveenteredintodirectdiscussionswiththeevaluationpanelsinordertoclarifysomeissues.AnyoutstandingissuesbetweentheindependentpanelsandtheapplicantswillberesolvedbyICANN’sBoardandweexpecttomovetowardscontractnegotiationswithsomeotherapplicantsaswell.Secondly,ICANNisabouttolaunchtherebidofthe.NETagreementasforeseenintherelevantcontract.GACmemberscanfollowtheprocessviatheinformationweposttotheICANNwebsite.Thirdly,asmentioned,wehavepublishedthedraftofaStrategyfortheIntroductionofNewgTLD’s.74


DespitereceivinganumberofsupplementalmaterialsfromICMinsupportofitsapplicationinlate2004,asofearly2005theICANNBoardwasstilluncertainthatICMhadsatisfiedtherequirementsforthe.xxxsTLD.OnJanuary24,2005,theBoardheldaspecialmeetingtodiscussthestatusofICM’sapplication.Atthismeeting,KurtPritz“introducedthe.XXXapplicationmaterials,evaluators’responsesandtheapplicant’ssupplementalmaterials”and“therewasextensiveBoarddiscussionregardingtheapplication,”focusedonICM’sproposedsponsoredcommunity.75Accordingtheminutes,theBoarddeterminedthatitwouldbeusefulforICMtogiveapresentationandinvitedICMtodosoatalaterBoardmeeting.76ICMdeliveredthepresentationonApril3,2005inMardelPlata,Argentina,afewdayspriortothescheduledICANNBoardmeeting,77toanaudienceofBoardmembersandanumberofBoardliaisons,includingTarmizi.78

73Ibid.74Ibid.,4(emphasisintheoriginal).75ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”January23,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐24jan05.htm.76Ibid.77TheICANNBoardhelditsregularmeetinginMardelPlata,ArgentinaonApril8,2005.78ICM,“RequestforIRP,”June6,2008,at28,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icm‐irp‐request‐06jun08.pdf.


{14}

Concurrently,theGACconvenedinMardelPlataonApril2–5in2005forthefirstofthreescheduledmeetingsin2005.79TheMardelPlataCommuniquédoesnotindicatethattheGACheldanydiscussionsrelatedtothesTLDsorthe.xxxapplicationspecifically.80

OnApril3,2005,81TarmizisentalettertoPaulTwomeyrespondingtoTwomey’spreviousrequestforGACinputonDecember1,2004.82Inthisletter,TarmizistatedthattheGAChadnoobjectionstoanyofthesTLDapplications:

NoGACmembershaveexpressedspecificreservationsorcomments,intheGAC,abouttheapplicationsforsTLDsinthecurrentround.HowevershouldsTLDsuseENUM,thatshouldnotinterferewithestablishedinternationalpoliciesfortheE164numberingsystem.ICANNshouldensurethatsponsorsofsTLDsencompasstheentiretyoftherelevantusercommunity,andthateventualdistortionsofcompetitionareeffectivelyavoided.83

FollowingtheApril3specialBoardmeeting,theBoardmetagainforaregularmeetingonApril8,2005inMardelPlata.84ThemeetingminutesreflectthattheBoardhopedtoreachadecisionwithinthirtydays:

Wehavehadafairlyextensivediscussionabout.ASIAand.XXX.Wecontinuetoevaluatethose.Theotherswillbeattendedaswecangettothem.But,Iwanttosayfortherecord,thatwewillattemptwithinthenext30daystocometoaconclusiononewayortheotherabout.ASIAand.XXX.85

Approximatelyonemonthlater,onMay3,2005,theBoardheldanotherspecialmeeting,andhada“broaddiscussion...whetherornotthe[.xxxapplication]metthecriteriawithintheRFPparticularlyrelatingtothedefinitionandcoherenceofthe‘sponsoredcommunity’.”86Noconclusionwasreachedinthesemeetings,and“theBoardagreeditwoulddiscussthisissueagainatthenextBoardmeeting.”87

OnJune1,2005,theBoardheldanotherspecialmeetinganddiscussedthe.xxxapplicationatlengthwitha“particularfocusonthe‘sponsoredcommunity’issues.”88Atthismeeting,the

79GAC,“Meeting22:MardelPlataCommuniqué,”April5,2005,http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_22_Mar_del_Plata.pdf.Theothermeetingsscheduledfor2005included:Meeting23:LuxembourgonJuly9‐12,2005,andMeeting24:VancouveronNovember28–December1,2005.Cf.GAC,“Meetings,”http://gac.icann.org/meetings.80Ibid.81TheICANNmeetingminutesonthisdateandtheTarmiziletterdonotindicatewhethertheletterwaswrittenandsentbeforeoraftertheBoardmeetingonthisdate.82MohamedSharilTarmizitoPaulTwomey,April3,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi‐to‐twomey‐03apr05.htm.83Ibid.84ICANN,“MarDelPlataMeeting,”April8,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/mardelplata/captioning‐BoD‐meeting‐08apr05.htm.85Ibid.86ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”May3,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐03may05.htm.87Ibid.88ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”June1,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐01jun05.htm.


{15}

BoardresolvedtoenterintonegotiationswithICMforthetechnicalandcommercialtermsofacontractualagreementrelatingtothedelegationofthesTLD.89WhetherthisresolutionindicatedthatICMhadadequatelymetthesTLDsponsorshipcriterialaterbecameafactualdisputeinthearbitrationproceedingsundertheIndependentReviewProcessbeginningin2008.90

TheGAChelditssecondmeetingoftheyearinLuxembourgonJuly7–12,2005.91TheLuxembourgCommuniquédoesnotspecificallymentionICM’sapplication,theproposed.xxxsTLD,ortheBoard’sJune1,2005resolutiontoenterintocontractnegationswithICM.However,theLuxembourgCommuniquémakesthefollowingreferencewithregardto“newTLDs”:

TheGACnotesfromrecentexperiencethattheintroductionofnewTLDscangiverisetosignificantpublicpolicyissues,includingcontent.Accordingly,theGACwelcomestheinitiativeofICANNtoholdconsultationswithrespecttotheimplementationofthenewToplevelDomainsstrategy.TheGAClooksforwardtoprovidingadvicetotheprocess.TheGACalsoencouragestheBoardtoactivelyconsultallconstituencieswithregardtothedevelopmentofthisstrategy.92

ThisistheonlyreferenceintheLuxembourgCommuniquétotheintroductionofnewTLDs;therearenoreferencestosTLDsspecifically.93Thephrase“significantpublicpolicyissues”isnotdefinedfurtherinthisdocument.94

FollowingtheLuxembourgmeetings,theICANNBoardmetinSeptemberandresolvedthattheICANNGeneralCounselandtheCEOandPresident,“aredirectedtodiscusspossibleadditionalcontractprovisionsormodificationsforincludioninthe.xxxregistryagreement”which,amongotherthings,ensurethe“developmentandimplementationofpoliciesconsistentwiththeprinciplesintheICMapplication.”95TheICANNBoardpostedthefirstdraftregistryagreementforthe.xxxsTLDontheICANNwebsiteforpubliccommentonAugust9,2005.96

Threedayslater,onAugust12,inaletteraddressedto“theICANNBoard,”TarmiziexpressedtheGAC’sdiscomfortwiththepossibilityofa.xxxsTLD:

InotherGACsessions,anumberofothergovernmentsalsoexpressedsomeconcernwiththepotentialintroductionofthisTLD.Theviewsarediverseandwideranging.AlthoughnotnecessarilywellarticulatedinLuxembourg,asChairman,Ibelievethereremainsa

89Ibid.90SeeICMRequestforIndependentReviewProcess,June6,2008,http://icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icm‐irp‐request‐06jun08.pdf.91GAC,“Meeting23:LuxembourgCommuniqué,”July12,2005,http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_23_Luxembourg.pdf.92Ibid.93Ibid.94Ibid.95ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”September15,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐15sep05.htm.96ICMandICANN,“.DraftSponsoredTLDRegistryAgreement,”August1,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/xxx/proposed‐xxx‐agmt‐09aug05.pdf.


{16}

strongsenseofdiscomfortintheGACabouttheTLD,notwithstandingtheexplanationstodate.97

Tarmizidisclosedthathehadbeen“approachedbysomeofthe[governmentswithconcerns]”andhad“advisedthemthatapartfromtheadvicegiveninrelationtothecreationofnewgTLDsintheLuxembougCommuniquéthatimplicitlyreferstotheproposedTLD,sovereigngovernmentsarealsofreetowritedirecltytoICANNaboutspecificconcerns.”Inthesameletter,TarmizialsoaskedtheBoardto“allowtimeforadditionalgovernmentalandpublicpolicyconcernstobeexpressedbeforereachingafinaldecision.”98

Followingthis,MichaelGallagher,AssisstantSecretaryoftheUSDepartmentofCommerceandAdministratoroftheNTIA,wrotetoVintCerf“tourgetheBoardtoensurethattheconcernsofallmembershavebeenadequatelyheardandresolvedbeforetheBoardtakesactionon[the.xxx]application.”99TheICANNwebsite’s“Correspondence”page100currentlydatesthisletterAugust15,2005.101Theposteddigitalcopyofthisletterhastwodatestampsonit:August11and“receivedAugust15.”102ThisletteradditionallynotedthattheDepartmentofCommercehadreceivedalargenumberofnegativecommentsfromthepublicregardingtheproposedsTLD.103

OnAugust15,thesamedaytheGallagherletterwaspostedtoICANN’swebsite,ICMofficiallyrequestedanadditionalmonthtoallowICANNtoaddresstheconcernsraisedbytheGAC.104Consequently,considerationoftheproposedagreementwaspostponeduntiltheSeptember2005Boardmeeting.105

OnSeptember6,2005,MarcelodeCaralhoLopes,theSecretaryofInformationTechnologyPolicyofBrazil,wrotetoMohamedSharilTarmiziandstatedthat“significantimpactsinlocalconcernshavebeenintroduced[asaresultofthe.xxxproposal]withoutadequateconsultationwithnationalgovernments.”106Lopesalsorequestedthat“anynewdecisionconcerningtheintroductionofanyotherTLDsshouldonlybetakenafteracarefulanalysisoftherealneedfor

97MohamedSharilTarmizitoICANNBoard,August12,2005,ICANNCorrespondencehttp://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi‐to‐board‐12aug05.htm.98Ibid.99MichaelGallaghertoVintCerf,August15,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher‐to‐cerf‐15aug05.pdf.100ICANN,“Correspondence,”http://www.icann.org/correspondence.101Ibid.102DuringtheBerkmanteam’sinterviewprocess,someintervieweesnotedtherewasconfusionastowhethertheletterwasreceivedonAugust11oronAugust15,2005.Comparehttp://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher‐to‐cerf‐15aug05.pdfwiththeCorrespondencePagedate:http://www.icann.org/correspondence.103Ibid.104StuartLawleytoVintCerf,August15,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lawley‐to‐twomey‐15aug05.pdf.SeealsoICM,“RequestforIndependentReviewProcess,”June6,2010,p34,http://icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icm‐irp‐request‐06jun08.pdf.105Ibid.106MarcelodeCarvalhoLopestoMohamedSharilTarmizi,September6,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lopez‐to‐tarmizi‐06sep05.pdf.


{17}

suchintroductionwithintheInternetanddueconsultation”withallaffectedpartiesandgovernments.107

InaspecialmeetingonSeptember15,2005,theBoardresolvedtocontinuediscussionswithICMandtoaddress“additionalprovisionsormodificationsforinclusion”intheagreement“toensurethereareeffectiveprovisionsrequiringdevelopmentandimplementationofpoliciesconsistentwiththeprinciplesintheICMapplication.”108OnSeptember16,PeterZangl,DeputyDirectoroftheEuropeanCommission’sInformationSociety,MediaDirectorateGeneralandamemberoftheGAC,wrotetoVintCerfandaskedICANNtoallowtheGACtoreviewtheindependentevaluators’reportsonthesTLDproposalsbeforetheBoardreachedafinaldecisionon.xxx.ZanglalsorequestedthattheICANNBoardexplaintheirreasonsforacceptingtheICM’sapplicationinresponsetothe2003RFProundafteritwasdeniedinthe2000“proofofconcept”round.109Aresponsetothisletterwasnotissueduntilmid‐January2006.110

Althoughtheproposed.xxxregistryagreementwasagainontheagendafordiscussionatthespecialmeetingoftheBoardheldonOctober12,2005,themeetingminutesdonotrecountanydiscussionconcerningtheagreement,ICM,or.xxx.111However,theminutesnotethat“therewasdiscussionregardingthenatureofothermattersontheBoard’sagendaandtheremainingagendaitemswereputoveruntilthenextpossibletimefortheBoardtotakeupsuchmatters.”112Priortotheendof2005,theICANNBoardheldthreemoremeetings:aspecialmeetingonOctober24,aspecialmeetingonNovember8,andtheVancouverMeetinginearlyDecember.113The.xxxsTLDandproposedregistryagreementwerenotlistedontheagendasforthesemeetingsnormentionedinthemeetingminutes.

InalettertoPaulTwomeydatedNovember23,2005,JonasBjelfvenstam,theStateSecretaryforCommunicationsandRegionalPolicyinSweden,expressedtheSwedishdisapprovalforthe.xxxdomain.BjelfvenstamalmostmadethefollowingremarksregardingtheGAC’sroleintheICANNdecision‐makingprocess:

IknowthatallTLDapplicationsaredealtwithinproceduresopentoeveryoneforcomment.However,inacaselikethis,wherepublicinterestsclearlyareinvolved,wefeelitcouldhavebeenappropriateforICANNtorequestadvicefromGAC.Admittedly,GACcouldhavegivenadvicetoICANNanywayatanypointintimeoftheprocessandtomyknowledge,noGACmembershaveraisedthequestionbeforetheGACmeetingJuly912,

107Ibid.108ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”September15,2005,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lopez‐to‐tarmizi‐06sep05.pdf.109PeterZangltoVintCerf,September16,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/zangl‐to‐cerf‐16sep05.pdf.110VintCerftoPeterZangl,January30,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf‐to‐zangl‐30jan06.pdf.111ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”October12,2005,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐12oct05.htm.112Ibid.113SeeICANN,“2005BoardMeetings,”2005,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/index‐2005.html.


{18}

2005,inLuxembourg.However,weallprobablyrestedassurethatICANN’snegativeopinionon.xxx,expressedin2000,wouldstand.

FromtheICANNdecisiononJune1,2005,therewastoolittletimeforGACtohaveaninformeddiscussiononthesubjectatitsLuxembourgsummermeeting;onemonthwouldbeinsufficienttimeforgovernmentstoindependentlyconsiderandrespondtothesubjectmatter.Inthisspecificcase,severalcountriesraisedseriousconcernsattheGACmeeting.However,therewastoolittleinformationathandtohaveaninformedandfruitfuldiscussionandhencenoconclusionswerereachedonthesubject.114

TheletterrequestedthattheICANNBoard“postponeconclusivediscussionon.xxxuntilaftertheupcomingGACmeetinginNovember29–30,2005,inVancouver”sothattheGACcoulddiscussmatters.BjelfvenstamaskedtheBoardtoprovide“indetailhowitmeans.xxxfulfilsthecriteriasetinadvance(‘criteriaforIndependentEvaluators’).”115

Onthesameday,November23,PaulTwomeyrespondedtoBjelfvenstam’sletter.116Inhisresponse,TwomeyexplainedthattheICANNBoardhadputoff“anydecisionon[the.xxx]applicationuntilatleasttheICANNBoardmeetingon4December2005.”117

TheGAC’sthirdandfinalmeetingin2005washeldoverNovember28–December1inVancouver,BritishColumbia.IntheGAC’sVancouverCommuniqué,theonlyrelevantnoteonthe.xxxapplicationwasthefollowing:

TheGACalsowelcomedareportfromICANNonthestatusofBoardapprovalofsponsoredTLDs,aswellastheEvaluationReportrequestedbyGACmembers.Inthatregard,theGACwelcomedthedecisiontopostponetheBoard’sconsiderationofthe.XXXapplicationfromitsDecember4th,2005meetinguntilsuchtimeastheGAChasbeenabletoreviewtheEvaluationReportandtheadditionalinformationrequestedfromICANN.118


AsofJanuary1,2006,theBoardhadnotyetvotedonthepending.xxxregistryagreement.ThenextsignificanteventsoccuredfollowingtheGAC’smeetinginWellingtoninMarch.Untilthen,ICANNcontinuedtonegotiatethetermsfortheproposed.xxxregistryagreementwhilerespondingtowrittencommunicationfromthemembersofthecommunity.

114JonasBjelfvenstamtoPaulTwomey,November23,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bjelfvenstam‐to‐twomey‐23nov05.htm.115Ibid.116PaulTwomeytoJonasBjelfvenstam,November23,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey‐to‐bjelfvenstam‐23nov05.pdf.117Ibid.118GAC,“Communiqué24—Vancouver,”December1,2005,http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_24_Vancouver_Communique.pdf.


{19}

OnJanuary17,2006,VintCerfissuedaseven‐pageletterrespondingtoPeterZangl’sSeptember16,2005letter.119Inthisletter,Cerfhighlightedsomeoftheproceduralandsubstantivedifferencesbetweenthe2000“proofofconcept”roundandthe2003RFPandaddressedanumberofissuesrelatedtotheGACthatwereraisedinZangl’soriginalletter.CerfexplainedthattheGACwasfirstformallyinformedofthependingsTLDapplicationsina“1December2004letterfromDr.Twomey”totheGACwhich“request[ed]inputonthepublicpolicyelementsofanumberofissuesandhighlightingmajordevelopmentsinICANN.”120Cerfstatedthat“theChairmanoftheGACrespondedtoDr.Twomeyon3April2005,”and“noted[inthisletter]that,asofthatdate,‘[n]oGACmembershaveexpressedspecificreservationsorcomments,intheGAC,abouttheapplicationsforsTLDsinthecurrentround.’”121Cerfthennotedthat“on1June2005,theBoardvotedtobegindiscussionofproposedcommercialandtechnicaltermswithICM”andthat“thisdecisiongeneratedmoreGACinterestintheapplicationthanhadbeenshownearlier.”122Cerfalsostatedthatduringthistimeperiod,PaulTwomeyreportedtotheGACthat“nocommentshadbeenreceivedfromgovernmentsregardingtheapplication”andtheGAChadnot“raisedtheissueinanyformalcommenttoICANN,suchasbyinclusioninaCommuniqué.”123Finally,CerfpointedoutthatthenextformalcorrespondencereceivedbyICANNwastheAugust12,2005letterfromtheGACChairmanthatdescribedtheoveralldiscomfortoftheGAC.124

OnFebruary11,2006,PaulTwomeysentMohamedSharilTarmizialetterthatwasessentiallyidenticalinsubstancetotheletterVintCerfsenttoPeterZanglonJanuary17.125InadditiontosummarizingtheBoard’sinteractionwiththeGACtodate,theTwomeyletteralsonotedthatICANNhad“receivedlettersfromsomemembersoftheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)aboutthe...applicationsubmittedbyICMRegistryfor.xxx”andsummarizedtheICMapplicationandtheBoard’sinteractionwiththeGACsincetheapplicationwasreceivedin2004.126

OnMarch17,2006,PeterZanglrepliedtoVintCerf’sJanuary17,2006letter.127Inhisletter,ZanglthankedCerfforthereplyandacknowledgedthatICANNisresponsibleformakingthefinaldecision.Zanglalsomadethefollowingremarks:

119VintCerftoPeterZangl,January.17,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf‐to‐zangl‐30jan06.pdf.SeealsoPeterZangltoVintCerf,September16,2005,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/zangl‐to‐cerf‐16sep05.pdf.120Ibid.,2.TheletteralsoincludesahyperlinktothePaulTwomeylettersenttoMohamedSharilTarmizionDecember1,2004.121Ibid.,2‐3(somepunctuationomitted).122Ibid.,3.123Ibid.124Ibid.125PaulTwomeytoMohamedSharilTarmizi,February11,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey‐to‐tarmizi‐16feb06.pdf.Cf.VintCerftoPeterZangl,January17,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/cerf‐to‐zangl‐30jan06.pdf.126Ibid.127PeterZangltoVintonCerf,March17,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/zangl‐to‐cerf‐17mar06.pdf.SeealsoVintCerf,toPeterZangl,January17,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/cerf‐to‐zangl‐30jan06.pdf.


{20}

IwouldemphasizehoweverthattherequestforadditionalinformationmadebytheGACinVancouverresultsfromtheconclusionoftheevaluationteamthatanumberoftheapplications,including.xxx‘donotmeetalloftheselectioncriteria’andthat,moreover,their‘deficienciescannotberemediedwithintheapplicant’sproposedframework’.Importantly,theevaluators‘recommendthatICANNnotconsidertheseapplicationsfurther’.

InordertocarryaboutourdutieseffectivelyintheGACtherefore,youwillunderstandwhyitwouldbeusefultoknowwhytheBoarddecidedtoproceedwiththeapplication,inparticulargivensuchexplicitadvicefromtheevaluators.InoteandappreciatetheextensiveinformationyouhaveprovidedinyourletterabouttheBoard’sdeliberations,butIdonotfeelthatthisspecificquestionissuccinctlyaddressed.Iwouldbegratefulthereforeifthereisadditionalinformationthatyou,onbehalfoftheBoard,cansharewithusontheseissues.

OnMarch20,2006,JohnM.R.Kneuer,theActingAssistantSecretaryattheUSDepartmentofCommerceandActingAssistantSecretaryfortheNTIA,wrotetoMohamedSharilTarmizi.128HisletteradvisedtheGACthattheproposed.xxxregistryagreementdidnotreflectanumberofkeycommitmentsofferedbyICMwithinthecontract’sprovisionsandrequestedthattheGACbringthistotheattentionoftheICANNBoardpriortotheWellington,NewZealandmeeting.129TheletteralsoincludedadescriptionoftheprovisionsthattheNTIAsaidwerenotreflectedintheagreement.130

OnMarch25,2006,StuartLawley,ICM’sCEO,sentalettertoTarmizirespondingtothecommentsmadebytheNTIAonMarch20.131Inthisletter,LawleystatedthattheletterfromtheNTIAwasincorrectandarguedthattheissuesraisedbytheNTIAwerealreadyaddressedbyanumberofspecificcommitmentsthathadbeennegotiatedbetweenICANNandICM.132

Afewdaysaftertheexchangeofletters,theGACmetinWellington,NewZealand.133TheWellingtonCommuniquéexpressedthemostcriticalremarkswithregardtothe.xxxapplicationtodatebytheGAC.Inparticular,theCommuniquéstatedthat“theGACdoesnotbelievetheFebruary11letterprovidessufficientdetailregardingtherationalefortheBoarddeterminationthattheapplicationhadovercomethedeficienciesnotedintheExaminationReport.”134TheCommuniquéfurtherrequested“awrittenexplanationoftheBoarddecision,particularlywithregardtothesponsoredcommunityandpublicinterestcriteriaoutlinedinthesponsoredtop‐

128JohnM.R.KneuertoMohamedSharilTarmizi,March20,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/kneuer‐to‐tarmizi‐20mar06.pdf.129Ibid.130Ibid.131StuartLawleytoMohamedSharilTarmizi,March25,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lawley‐to‐tarmizi‐25mar06.pdf.132Ibid.133GAC,“Communiqué25—Wellington,”March28,2006,http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_25_Wellington_Communique.pdf.134Ibid.,3.SeealsoPaulTwomeytoMohamedSharilTarmizi,February16,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/twomey‐to‐tarmizi‐16feb06.pdf.


{21}

leveldomainselectioncriteria.”135TheCommuniquéalsostatedthatICMcommittedto“arangeofpublicinterestbenefitsaspartofthebidtooperatethe.xxxdomain”andthat“theseundertakingshavenotyetbeenincludedasICMobligationsintheproposed.xxxRegistryAgreement.”ItalsolistedanumberofsuchprovisionsthattheGACwantedtobeaddressed.136

InaseparatesectionoftheWellingtonCommuniqué,titled“GAC–ICANNBoardCooperation,”theCommuniquénotedthat“theGACacknowledgesthatthereisaneedfortheGACtoconsiderchangesinitsworkingmethodsinordertoenableittointeractmoreroutinelywiththeICANNBoardandthecommunity.”137

ThedayaftertheGACCommuniquéwasissued,theICANNBoardhelditsregularmeetinginWellington.138Atthismeeting,theBoardresolvedthat“thePresidentandtheGeneralCounselaredirectedtoanalyzeallpubliclyreceivedinputs”and“tocontinuenegotiationswith[ICM].”139TheresolutionstatedthatthePresidentandGeneralCounselalsoare“toensurethattheTLDsponsorwillhaveinplaceadequatemechanismstoaddressanypotentialregistrantviolationsofthesponsor’spolicies,”evaluatetheproposedamendmentstotheregistryagreementandprovidetheBoardwithrecommendations.140

OnApril28,2006,theICANNBoardheldaspecialmeetinganddiscussed,amongotherthings,thestatusoftheproposed.xxxsTLDregistryagreement.141JohnJeffrey,theICANNGeneralCounsel,providedanupdateonthenegotiationsandthechangesthathadbeenmadetotheproposedregistryagreementsincetheWellingtonmeetings.JeffreynotedthatICMhadprovided“afinalversionoftheirproposalforaresponsetoallconcernsfromthecommunityandrelatingtotheGACCommuniqué.”142VintCerfindicatedthathewouldliketo“haveanupordownvoteatthe10MayMeeting.”143JohnJeffreyalsostatedthatthat“theICMversion[oftheproposedagreement],includingaletterfromICM,wouldbepublishedlaterthatdayforpubliccomment.”144

MohamedSharilTarmizi,whowaspresentatthisBoardmeeting,“requestedanupdateonwhethertherewouldbearesponsetotheGACregardingtheitemsthatsetoutintheCommuniquéinWellington.”PaulTwomeystatedthat“aresponsewouldbeprovidedbeforethe10MayMeeting.”145OvertheremainderoftheBoardmeeting,theminutesindicatetheBoardmembersdiscussedconcernsregardingtheproposedregistryagreement,includingthemanner

135Ibid.136Ibid.137Ibid.,2‐3.138ICANN,“MeetingoftheBoard,Wellington,NZ,”March31,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐31mar06.htm.139Ibid.140Ibid.141ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheICANNBoard,”18April,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐18apr06.htm.142Ibid.143Ibid.144Ibid.145Ibid.


{22}

ofcomplianceandwhetherpolicyenforcementprovisionswouldbesufficienttocoveracommunity“ascomplexastheadultentertainmentcommunity.”146

PaulTwomeysentaletteraddressedtoTarmiziandmembersoftheGAConMay4,2006.147TheletterstatedthatTwomeywaswritinginresponsetotheGAC’srequestforinformationregardingthedecisiontoproceedwiththe.xxxnegotiationsinJune2005.InthislettertheICANNBoardagaindirectedtheGACtothe“11Februarylettertoexplain‘theBoarddecision,particularlywithregardtothesponsoredcommunityandpublicinterestcriteria.”148Theletterfurtherstatedthat“itisimportanttonotethattheBoarddecisionastothe.xxxapplicationisstillpending”andthattheJune2005decisiononlypermittedtheICANNstafftoenterintonegotiationsforaproposedregistryagreement.Twomeyexplainedthatthisdecisiondidnotprejudice“theBoard’srighttoevaluatetheresultingcontractandtodecidewhetheritmeetsallofthecriteriabeforetheBoardincludingpublicpolicyadvicesuchastheBoardeitherapprovesorrejectstheregistryagreementrelatingtothe.xxxapplication.”149TheremainderoftheletterexplainedtheprocessofevaluationagainasexplainedintheFebruary11letterand,inparticular,notedthat“inallinstanceswheretheevaluators’negativereportswerereevaluatedbytheBoardofDirectors,theapplicantsansweredallquestionsandclarifiedissuesthathadbeenofconcerntotheevaluatorstothesatisfactionofamajorityoftheBoard.”150

OnMay9,2006,MartinBoyle,theUKRepresentativetotheGAC,sentalettertoVintCerfasafollow‐uptothediscussionsheldattheWellingtonmeeting.151Theletterdescribesthe“firmview[oftheUK]thatifthedot.xxxdomainnameistobeauthorized,itwouldbeimportantthatICANNensuresthebenefitsandsafeguardsproposedbytheregistry,ICM,includingthemonitoringalldot.xxxcontentandratingofcontentonallserverspointedtobydot.xxx,aregenuinelyachievedfromdayone.”152Boylealsopointedoutthat“itwillbeimportantfortheintegrityofICANN’spositionasfinalapprovingauthority...tobeseenasabletointervenepromptlyandeffectivelyifforanyreasonfailureonthepartofICMinanyofthesefundamentalsafeguards.”153

AlsoonMay9,2006,TimRuiz,VicePresidentofGoDaddy,sentalettertoICANNto“encouragetheICANNBoardtoconsidertheproposed.xxxRegistryAgreementonlyinregardstohowitaddressesthepublicpolicyconcernsraisedbytheGAC.”154Ruizalsostatedthatthecurrent

146Ibid.147JohnJeffreytoMohamedSharilTarmiziandmembersoftheGAC,May4,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://icann.org/correspondence/twomey‐to‐tarmizi‐04may06.pdf.SeealsoPaulTwomeytoMohamedSharilTarmizi,February11,2006,http://icann.org/en/correspondence/twomey‐to‐tarmizi‐16feb06.pdf.148Ibid.149Ibid.150Ibid.151MartinBoyletoVintCerf,May9,2010,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/boyle‐to‐cerf‐09may06.htm.152Ibid.153Ibid.154TimRuiztoICANN,May9,2010,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/ruiz‐to‐board‐09may06.pdf.


{23}

roundofTLDexpansionwasstillnotcompleteaftertwoyearsandnotesthat“thisfactwillcertainlydiscouragefutureapplicantsfornewsponsoredorun‐sponsoredgTLDs.”155

OnMay10,2006,theBoardheldaspecialmeetingandvotedontheproposed.xxxregistryagreement,followinga“detaileddiscussion”oftheagreementterms,includingthepromisesmadebyICMinsupportoftheproposal,concernsregardingICANN’sabilitytoenforcethetermsthroughacontractualframework,thesponsorshipcriteria,GACadviceandcommunityinput.156Bya9–5vote,theICANNBoardresolvedtorejectthecurrentdraftofthe.xxxregistryagreement(butnotICM’sapplicationasawhole),citingconcernsabouttheagreement’senforceability,thesponsorshipcriteria,andotherconcernsvoicedinthepubliccommentsreceived.157ICMfiledaRequestforReconsiderationonthesameday;158however,afterICANNinvitedICMtosubmitareviseddraftoftheregistryagreement,ICMwithdrewitsRequest.159

StuartLawley,PresidentofICM,sentalettertoVintCerfonMay30,2006expressinghisdisappointmentattheBoard’sdecisionandat“thelackofcommunicationfromICANN”onthecurrentstatusoftheapplication.LawleynotedthatafterreviewingtheBoard’svotingtranscripthewas“convinced”that“certainmisconceptionspreventedtheBoardfromreachingabalancedandequitablejudgmentontheagreement.”Inparticular,LawleydescribedtheMay9letterfromMartinBoyle,theUKGACrepresentative,asbeing“mischaracterized.”LawleyalsostatedthatICMwasstillcommittedtotheprojectandhadfiledanexpeditedrequestforreconsideration.Finally,LawleyoutlinedanICMinitiativethat“enable[s]certainresponsiblemembersoftheonlineadultentertainmentcommunity...tosubmitarequesttoreserveaparticulardomainfortheirsubsequentregistrationshouldICANNauthorizeICMtooperate.XXX”160

BetweenJune2006andJanuary1,2007,ICANNhasnopublicrecordsofGACcorrespondenceregardingtheproposed.xxxregistryagreementorthesTLDapplication.Additionally,the.xxxproposedregistryagreementwasnotmentionedinanyBoardmeetingminutesduringthistimeperiod.


OnJanuary5,2007,ICANNposteda“revisedproposed”.xxxregistryagreementbetweenICANNandICMforpubliccommentsuntilFebruary5,2007.161OnFebruary2,2007,TarmizisentalettertoVintCerfinresponsetotheJanuary5announcement.162

155Ibid.156ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”May10,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐10may06.htm.157ICANN,“VotingTranscriptofBoardMeeting,”May10,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/voting‐transcript‐10may06.htm.158ICM,“RequestforReconsiderationofBoardAction,”May10,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/icm‐06‐4/petition‐20may06.pdf.159ICM,“RequestforReconsideration06‐4:LetterfromJ.BeckwithBurrtoReconsiderationCommittee,”October29,2006,http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/withdrawal‐of‐request‐06‐4‐29oct06.htm.160StewartLawleytoVintCerf,May30,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/lawley‐to‐cerf‐30may06.htm.161ICANNAnnouncement,“ICANNPublishesRevisedProposedAgreementon.XXX,”January5,2007,http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement‐05jan07.htm.


{24}

Theletterstatedthatthe“GACconvenedateleconferenceon17January2007todiscussitsreactionto[thecallforcomments]”andthattheparticipatingGACmembersonthecall“notedthatthemodificationstotheproposedagreementareintendedtoaddresspublicpolicyissuesraisedbytheGACinitsWellington,NewZealandCommuniquéofMarch2006.”Theletteralsopointedoutthat“itisunlikelythattheGACwillbeinapositiontoprovideanycommentson.xxx,aboveandbeyondthatprovidedintheWellingtonCommuniqué,beforethenextmeetinginLisbon.”163

Theletteralsostatedthat,despitetheICANNPresident’sletterssentonFebruary11andMay4,2006,theGAChadrequested“writtenclarificationfromtheICANNBoardregardingitsdecisionJune12005”and“reiterate[s]theGAC’srequestforaclearexplanationofwhytheICANNBoardissatisfiedthatthe.xxxapplicationhasovercomethedeficienciesrelatingtotheproposedsponsorshipcommunity.”164TheletteralsorequestedthatICANNprovidetheGACwithconfirmationthattheproposed.xxxregistryagreementcontainedenforceableprovisionscovering“allofICMRegistry’scommitments.”

Finally,Tarmizi’slettersuggestedthatitwouldbeappropriatefortheGACandtheICANNBoardtohold“face‐to‐facediscussions”inLisboninMarch2007.Inhisconcludingremarks,TarmiziagainstatedthatseveralGACmembersremained“emphaticallyopposedfromthepublicpolicyperspectivetotheintroductionofan.xxxsTLD”—aswasnotedintheWellingtonCommuniqué—andthatsuchsentimentswerenotcontingentonthe“specificitiesoftheagreement.”165

TwospecialmeetingsoftheICANNBoardwereheldbetweenFebruary5,2007andtheMarch2007Lisbonmeetings.Thefirstmeeting,heldonFebruary12,2007,includedalengthydiscussionoftheproposed.xxxagreement,whichcoveredcommunityandpubliccomments,statusofadvicefromtheGAC,includinga“clarificationoftheletterfromtheGACChairandChair‐Elect”andwhetheradditionalpublicpolicyadvicewastobeexpected,andhowICMmeasuresuptotheRFPcriteria.166

Someofthenotablepointsraisedduringthismeetingwerethatmorethan200,000emailshadbeensenttoICANNandmorethan1,300commentshadbeensubmittedtothepubliccommentforumssincetheinitialICMapplication.Ofthese,600commentsand55,579emailshadbeenreceivedsincetheJanuary5,2007postingoftheproposedregistryagreement.TheBoardalsodiscussedtheextentoftheburdenbeingplacedonICMtoshowthattheentiresponsoringcommunitysupportsthecreationofthe.xxxdomain.SomeBoardmembersraisedwhattheydescribedasarecentlackofsupportforthedefinedcommunityobservedinnegativeemailsandpubliccomments.Ultimately,theBoardresolvedthat“amajorityoftheBoardhasseriousconcerns”abouttheunderlyingsponsoredcommunitysupport,andthatICMshouldprovide

162MohamedSharilTarmizitoVintCerf,February2,2007,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/tarmizi‐to‐cerf‐02feb07.pdf.163Ibid.164Ibid.165Ibid.166ICANN,“SpecialMeetingoftheBoard,”February12,2007,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes‐12feb07.htm.


{25}

furtherinformationtoICANNtohelpdeterminewhetherthesponsorshipcriteriahadbeenmet.TarmizistatedduringthismeetingthattheFebruary2,2007lettersenttoVintCerfservedastheGAC’sofficialadviceonthecurrentproposedregistryagreement.

ICMrespondedonMarch8,2007totheBoard’srequestforinformationandprovidedalistof“pre‐reservants”compiledfromthelastsixmonths.167ThislistwasgeneratedthroughICM’s“pre‐reservation”initiative,whichStuartLawleyhaddiscussedinhisMay30,2006lettertoVintCerf.168Attachedtotheletterwereover75,000pre‐reservationsofdomainnamestringsspecificallyrequestedbywebmasters,totaling546pages.Anumberofstatisticsinfavorofcommunitysponsorshipwerealsonotedinthisletter.

TheBoardhelditsnextspecialmeetingonMarch12,2007.Atthismeeting,theBoardengagedinanotherlengthydiscussionconcerningtheproposed.xxxregistryagreementandwhetherthesponsorshipcriteriahadbeenmet.TheBoardmeetingminutesnotedthatmostmembersfelttheBoardshouldholdoffvotingontheapplicationuntil,orafter,theLisbonmeeting,whichwastwoweeksaway.Theminutesalsoindicatedthat,again,TarmizinotedthattheBoardcouldseek“additionaladvicefromtheGAC”priortotheLisbonmeetings,butsucharequestwouldneedtobemade“expeditiously.”TarmizialsonotedthatsomeGACmembersremainedadamantlyagainstthecreatonofthe.xxxsTLD.169

TheGACrepresentativesatthismeeting(TarmiziandJanisKarklins)askedifaresponsetotheGAC’srequestformoreinformationontheBoard’sJune2005decisionwouldbeprovidedpriortotheLisbonmeetings.Inresponse,“theChairmansaidthataresponsewouldbeprovided”;theminutesstatedthat“thiswasconfirmedbyPaulTwomey,”whopointedoutthatsomepreviousletterswereresponsivetotheGAC’srequestsandsome“additionalclarityaroundtheGAC’sadvicecouldbepresentedonthismatter.”170

TheGACrequestwasansweredonMarch14,2007,inaone‐pageletterfromVintCerf.171CerfagainnotedthatthecommunicationsfromICANNonFebruary11andMay4,2006containedtheinformationtheGACrequested.CerfalsostatedthattheBoardwas“stillreviewingthematerialsandha[d]notmadeadeterminationastowhethertherevisionstotheICMRegistrycontractcontainthenecessaryenforceableprovisions.”CerfacknowledgedthatsomemembersoftheGACwereopposedtothecreationofthe.xxxsTLDandthattheyhadrequestedthatthefinaldecisionbedelayeduntiltheLisbonmeetings.

167StuartLawleytoVintCerfandICANNBoard,March8,2007,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cover‐letter‐pre‐reservation‐aatt.pdf.168StuartLawleytoVintCerf,May30,2006,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/lawley‐to‐cerf‐30may06.pdf.169Ibid.170Ibid.171VintCerftoMohamedSharilTarmizi,March14,2007,ICANNCorrespondence,http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf‐to‐tarmizi‐karklins‐14Mar07.pdf.


{26}

TheGACLisbonmeetingswereheldinlateMarch.TheLisbonCommuniquéwasissuedonMarch28,2007.172Withregardto.xxx,theLisbonCommuniquéremarkedthatthe“WellingtonCommuniquéremainsavalidandimportantexpressionoftheGAC’sviewson.xxx”andthattheGAC“doesnotconsidertheinformationprovidedbytheBoardtohaveansweredtheGACconcernsastowhethertheICMapplicationmeetsthesponsorshipcriteria.”173

TheCommuniquéalsobringsattentiontotheCanadiangovernment’scomments,whichhadbeenpostedtotheICANNpublicforums.ThesecommentsraisedconcernsthatICANNwasmovingtowardsan“ongoingmanagementandoversightroleregardingInternetcontent,whichwouldbeinconsistentwithitstechnicalmandate.”174

FollowingtheGACmeetingsinLisbon,theICANNBoardalsoheldameetingonMarch30,2007.175Duringthismeeting,theBoarddeterminedthattheICMapplicationfailedtomeetthesponsoredcommunitycriteriaintheRFPspecificationand,basedontheextensivepublicpolicyissuesraisedintheGACCommuniqués,itwouldnotbeappropriatefortheBoardtoapprovetheICMapplicationortherevisedagreement.Consequently,theBoardvotedtorejecttheICMapplicationinitsentirety.

2.6PerceptionsoftheGAC’sRoleinthe.xxxProcessBasedonBerkmanCaseStudyInterviews

IndividualswhohavebeeninterviewedinthecourseofdevelopingthiscasestudyshareddifferentobservationsregardingtheinteractionbetweentheGACandtheICANNBoardduringtheevaluationofthe.xxxapplication.Someintervieweessuggestedaclashofinstitutionalculturesthatinhibitedbettercommunication.OtherscitedalackofappreciationonthepartoftheICANNBoardfortheroleoftheGACandthedifficultpoliticalchallengesfacedbyaninter‐governmentalbody,allwithdomesticconstituenciestowhichtheymustanswer.Otherobserversindicatedthatthescheduleofthepolicy‐makingprocessdidnotallowsufficienttimeforGACtoofferadvicetotheICANNBoard.SomeofthoseintervieweesdescribedalackofclarityregardingwhatconstitutedGACadvicetotheICANNBoard.OtherssuggestedthattheGACdidnotoffertimelyadviceonthe.xxxdecisionbecausemembersbelievedthatthecasewasclosed.176

172GAC,“Communiqué28—Lisbon,”March28,2007,4,http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_28_Lisbon_Communique.pdf.173Ibid.174Ibid.at5.175ICANN,“MeetingoftheICANNBoard,Lisbon,”March28,2007,http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions‐30mar07.htm#_Toc36876524.176Interviews,SeptemberandOctober2010.


{27}

3TheIndependentReviewPanel:ICMv.ICANN

3.1IndependentReviewRequestsandtheIndependentReviewPanelinICANN’sBylaws

TheIndependentReviewPanel(IRP)isoneofthreeexistingmechanismspurposedforthereviewofICANNBoardactivitiesanddecisions(theothertwomechanismsaretheOmbudsmanandReconsiderationRequests).ArticleIV,Section3oftheICANNBylawsstatesthat,“anypersonmateriallyaffectedbyadecisionoractionbytheBoardthatheorsheassertsisinconsistentwiththeArticlesofIncorporationorBylawsmaysubmitarequestforindependentreview.”177Oncesubmitted,arequestforindependentreviewis“referredtoanIndependentReviewPanel(IRP)”whichcomparesthe“contestedactionsoftheBoardtotheArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws”andultimatelydeclares“whethertheBoardhasactedconsistentlywith”theprovisionscontainedtherein.178

Attherequestofeitherdisputingparty,therequestforindependentreviewcanbeheardbyathree‐memberpanelofarbiters;however,ifthepartiesdonotoptforathree‐memberpanel,therequestisconsideredbyaone‐memberpanel.179Ineithercase,thepanelthatconsiderstherequestforindependentreviewhasthepowerto:

a) requestadditionalwrittensubmissionsfromthepartyseekingreview,theBoard,theSupportingOrganizations,orfromotherparties;

b) declarethatanactionorinactionoftheBoardwasinconsistentwiththeArticlesofIncorporationorBylaws;and

c) recommendthattheBoardstayanyactionordecision,orthattheBoardtakeanyinterimaction,untilsuchtimeastheBoardreviewsandactsuponopinionoftheIRP.180

TheIRPmakes“itsfinaldeclarationbasedsolelyonthedocumentation,supportingmaterials,andargumentssubmittedbytheparties”and“specificallydesignate[s]”aprevailingparty.181The“partynotprevailingshallordinarilyberesponsibleforbearingallcostsoftheIRPProvider,”and“eachpartyshallbearitsownexpenses.”182

Todate,ICMv.ICANNistheonlyrequestforindependentreviewthathasbeenheardbyanIRPonthemerits.183Inthiscase,theIRPconsistedofathree‐memberpanelofarbitratorscontracted

177ICANNBylaws,ArticleIV,Section3(2),August5,2010,http://icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.178Ibid.,ArticleIV,Section3.Asasidenote,useoftheterm“IRP”appearstobeuseddifferentlyindocumentsandeitherreferstothe“IndependentReviewProcess”orthe“IndependentReviewPanel.”Exceptwhereotherwisenoted,thisreportintendsthetermIRPtorefertotheIndependentReviewPanel.179Ibid.180Ibid.,ArticleIV,Section3(8).181Ibid.,ArticleIV,Section3(12).182Ibid.,ArticleIV,Section3(12).183SeeICANN,“IRP,”http://www.icann.org/en/irp


{28}

bytheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution.184ThepanelincludedJudgeStephenM.Schwebel,JanPaulson,andJudgeDickranTevrizian.185

3.2ICM’sRequestforIndependentReview

OnJune6,2008,ICMsubmittedarequestforindependentreview,allegingthatICANNactedinamanner“inconsistentwithitsArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws”byimproperlyadministeringthe2003RFPandrejectingICM’s.xxxapplicationinMarch2007.186ICMrequestedfortheIRPtodeclarethat:(1)ICANN’sMarch2007rejectionoftheICMapplicationwasinconsistentwiththeICANNBylawsandArticlesofIncorporation,(2)ICANN“mustimmediatelyexecutearegistryagreementontermsandconditionssubstantiallysimilartoICM’sdraftregistryagreementpostedonICANN’swebsiteonFebruary6,2007,”and(3)theIRP’s“determinationregardingwhetheranyofICANN’sactionswereinconsistentwithICANN’sArticlesofIncorporationandBylawsisbindingonICANN.”187

Insupportoftheseallegations,ICMarguedthatseveraleventsthroughoutICANN’sevaluationofthe.xxxapplicationwereinconsistentwiththeArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws.Additionally,ICMarguedthatthefivereasonsICANNgaveinsupportofitsrejectionwereinconsistentwiththeArticlesofIncorporation,Bylaws,andthewaytheotherapplicantsweretreated.188

Primarily,ICMarguedthattheJune1,2005BoarddecisionconstitutedanapprovaloftheICMproposalinlightoftheRFPcriteria,includingthesponsorshipcriteria.189ICMarguedthatICANNhaduseda“two‐step”processwiththeotherapplicants,wherebyapplicantswerefirstapprovedonthemeritsoftheRFPcriteria,“followedbyregistryagreementnegotiation”andexecution.190AccordingtoICM,the.xxxapplicationwastheonlyapplicationthatdeviatedfromthisprocessbyreopeningthesponsorshipcriteria.191ICMalsostatedthattherewasalackof“evidencebeforetheBoardthatICM’ssupportinthecommunitywaseroding.”192Ultimately,ICMclaimedthat“ICANNsreopeningofthesponsorshipcriteria—whichitdidonlytoICM—wasunfair,discriminatory,andpretextual,andadeparturefromtransparent,fair,andwelldocumentedpolicies.”

184SeeICANN,“ResolutionsAdoptedatSpecialICANNBoardMeeting”SpecialMeetingoftheBoardviaTelephone19April2004http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions‐19apr04.htm,whentheICANNBoarddesignatedtheInternationalCentreforDisputeResolutionastheIndependentReviewProvider..185DeclarationoftheIndependentReviewPanel,ICDR.CaseNo.50117T0022408,(February19,2010)(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“IRPDeclaration”),availableathttp://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/irp‐panel‐declaration‐19feb10‐en.pdf.186ICM,“RequestforIndependentReviewProcess,”June8,2008,http://icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icm‐irp‐request‐06jun08.pdf.187Ibid.,1‐2(emphasisadded).188IRPDeclaration,45.189Ibid.SeealsoICM,“RequestforIndependentReviewProcess.”190ICM,“RequestforIndependentReviewProcess,”25‐26.191Ibid.192IRPDeclaration,45.


{29}

TheIRPrequestalsoclaimedthattheindependentevaluationsidentifiedgreaterdeficienciesinothersTLDapplications(including.jobsand.mobi)andacceptedthoseproposalswithcomparativelylittleresistancefromICANN.193Forexample,ICMstatedthat“followingthenegotiations,theproposed.traveland.jobsregistryagreementswerepostedontheICANNwebsiteon24March2005,andwereapprovedtwoweekslater,on8April2005.”194AccordingtotheIRPrequest,“theprocessforeachapplicationstillfollowedtheoriginaltwo‐stepprocessofcriteraapprovalfollowedbyregistryagreementnegotiation”andin“nocaseotherthanwiththe.xxxapplication”didtheBoardlaterreverseitsdecisionafterithadvotedinfavorofnegotiations.195

Asadditionalevidence,ICMclaimed“severalICANNseniorofficialsandBoardmembers,”includingVintCerf,KurtPritz,andJoichiItomadecommentsthatreflectedthattheJune1,2005decisionwasadeterminationthatICMhadsatisfiedtheRFPcriteria.196Inparticular,ICMclaimedthatCerfhad“informedtheGACthatICM’sapplicationhadsatisfiedtheselectioncriteria”attheJuly2005ICANNmeetinginLuxembourg.197

Finally,theIRPrequestpointedoutthat“theGACwasinvitedtoandwasoftenrepresentedatmeetinginwhichICM’sapplication(andothers)werediscussedanddebated”andfurthermore“[theGAC]wasregularlyprovidedwithbriefingpapersregardingthesTLDRFPprocess,anditwaspermittedtoparticipateintheBoard’sdiscussionsregardingICM’sapplication.”198Thecoreofthisargumentfocusesonthelackof“anyobjectstothe.xxxsTLD...attheoutset,whenthesTLDevalutationcriteriaweredebatedandultimatelyapproved”andwhen“ICANNresolvedtocommenceregistryagreementnegotiationswithICM.”199ICMallegedintheIRPRequestthattheGACraisednoobjectionstothecreationof.xxxandthatitwasonlyaftertheUnitedStatesDepartmentofCommercebeganvoicingitsconcernsinMarch2006thattheGACbegantotakeadissentingview,expressedmainlyinitscorrespondencewithICANNandintheWellingtonandLisbonCommuniqués.200

TheIRPrequestalsoreferencedstatementsfromICANNBoardmemberswhoraiseddoubtsaboutthedecisiononMarch30,2007torejectICM’sproposal.PeterDengateThrushwasquotedassayingthatICANN’sargumentthat.xxxdoesnotrepresenta“sponsoredcommmunity”was“particularlythin,”andthat“ifICANNisgoingtoraisethiskindofobjection,thenitbetterthinkseriouslyaboutgettingoutofthebusinessofintroducingnewTLDs.”201Similarly,SusanCrawfordarguedthatifnoconsensusexistedagainstthe.xxxTLDintheadultcommunity,

193Ibid.,25.194Ibid.195Ibid.,25‐26.196Ibid.,29.197Ibid.,29.198Ibid.,30.199Ibid.,31.200Ibid.,37.201Ibid.,46.


{30}

then,“givenourmandatetocreateTLDcompetition,wehavenoauthoritytoblocktheadditionofthisTLDtotheroot.”202

ICMalsoarguedthatICANNhadneverpreciselyidentifiedwhat“publicpolicy”issueswereraisedbytheICMagreementthatwouldwarranttherejectionoftheapplicationinitsentirety.203Inparticular,ICMclaimedthatICANN’sinterpretationoftheWellingtonCommuniquéandgovernmentalcorrespondence,whichhadassertedthatICMwastotakeresponsibilityfor“enforcingtheworld’svariousanddifferentlawsconcerningpornography”was“sufficientlyabsurdastohavebeenmadeinbadfaith”anddiscriminatory.204

Amongtheremainingarguments,ICMalsocontendedthatitsproposedregistryagreementcontainedsufficientprovisionstoaddresschildpornographyissuesanddetailedmechanismsthatwouldpermittheidentificationandfiltrationofillegaloroffensivecontent.Moreover,ICMclaimedthatICANN’sviewthattheICMproposalraised“significantlawenforcementcomplianceissues”indicatedthatthe“GACwasrequiringICMtoenforcelocalrestrictionsonaccesstoillegalandoffensivecontentandif[ICM]provedunableto,ICANNwouldhavetodoso.”AccordingtoICM,theGAC’sadvicerequiredICANNtoimposeresponsibilitiesonICMthatwereinconsistentwithICANN’stechnicalmandate.

3.3ICANN’sResponsetoICM’sRequestforIndependentReview

ICANNfiledits“ResponsetoICM’sRequestforIndependentReview”onSeptember8,2008.205InresponsetoICM’sallegationsofinconsistency,ICANNarguedthat:(1)ICANN’sconsiderationoftheICMproposalwas“moreopenandtransparentthanonewouldfindinvirtuallyanyothercontextinconjunctionwithanyotherorganization”;(2)theJune1,2005decisiontoenterintonegotiationsdidnotbindICANNtoawardICMaregistryagreementandretainedtheabilitytorejectICM’sapplication;and(3)ICANNcouldhaverejectedtheapplicationsolelybasedontherecommendationsfromtheIndependentEvaluationPanel,butinsteadattemptedtowork“closelyandingoodfaithwithICMtocureapparentproblemswiththeapplicationandultimatelydecidedsuchproblemscouldnotbeaddressedbytheagreement.”206

Additionally,ICANNarguedthatthe“Bylawssupportadeferentialstandardofreview”tobeappliedintheIndependentReviewProcess,“particularlywithrespecttoICM’sclaims.”207Onthispoint,ICANNarguedthat“aslongastheBoard’sdiscussionsareopenandtransparent,its

202Ibid.,47.203Ibid.,46.204Ibid.205ICANN,“ICANN’sResponsetoICM’sIRPRequest,”September,8,2008,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icann‐response‐to‐icm‐request‐08sep08.pdf.206Ibid.,3‐4.207Ibid.,4.


{31}

decisionsaremadeingoodfaith,andtherelevantpartieshavebeengivenanopportunitytobeheard,thereisastrongpresumptionthattheBoard’sdecisionsareappropriate.”208

Insupportofthesearguments,ICANNincludedanexplanationofits“decision‐makingprocesses”and“processforindependentreview”withinitsresponse.209Inthissection,ICANNarguedthat“theIndependentReviewProcessisnotaformoftraditionaldisputeresolution,i.e.,mediationorarbitration,”anddescribedtheIndependentReviewProcessasamechanism“intendedtoprovidethecommunitywithaformalprocessforreviewingspecificdecisionsoftheICANNBoard.”ICANNpointedtoArticleIV,Section3(15)ofitsBylawsandclaimedthatthe“IRP’sdeclarationisnotbindingontheparties”and“theBoard,‘wherefeasible,’”isonlyrequiredto“considertheIRP’sdeclarationattheBoard’snextmeeting.”210ICANNalsopointedoutthat“theBylawsexpresslyprovidethattheIndependentReviewshouldbeconductedvia‘emailandotherwiseviatheInternettothemaximumextentfeasible.”Onthispoint,ICANNarguedthat“theIndependentReviewProcessdoesnotspecificallycontemplatetheneedforalivehearing.”211

ICANN’scentralfactualcontentionwasthatitsinitialapprovaloftheICMproposalin2005andthesubsequentcontractnegotiationsweretentativeanddidnotconstituteacommitmenttoawardaregistryagreement.ICANNarguedthatitsnegotiationswithICMwereintendedtodeterminewhetherthetermsofaregistryagreementcouldsatisfytheICANNBoard’sconcernsabouttheproposal’scompliancewiththesTLDsponsorshipcriteria.“TheentirepremiseofICM’srequest—thatproceedingtocontractnegotiationsamountedtoaguaranteethatICMwouldobtainacontractforthe.XXXTLD—issimplyfalse.”212

ICANNarguedfurtherthatitsfinalrejectionofICM’sproposalin2007“cameafterextensivereview,analysisanddebateamongICANNBoardmembers”andwasnotasignofcapriciousnessinitsdecision‐makingprocesses.Instead,ICANNargueditsdecisionreflectedthefollowingreasons:

a) ICM’sapplicationandrevisedagreementfailedtomeet,amongotherthings,the“sponsoredcommunity”requirementoftheRFPspecification;

b) [TheBoard’sdecisionwasbased]ontheextensivepubliccommentandtheGAC’sCommuniqués,theagreementraisedconsiderablepublicpolicyissues/concerns.TheapplicationandagreementdidnotresolvetheissuesraisedbytheGAC’sCommuniqués,andtheBoarddidnotbelievethepublicpolicyconcernscouldbecrediblyresolvedwiththemechanismsproposedbyICM;

c) Theapplicationraisedsignificantlawenforcementcomplianceissuesbecauseofcountries’varyinglawsrelatingtocontentandpracticesthatdefinethenatureoftheapplication;and

208Ibid.209Ibid.,5.210Ibid.,9.211Ibid.,9.212Ibid.,4.


{32}

d) TheBoardagreedwiththeGAC’sLisbonCommuniqué,thatundertherevisedagreement,therearecrediblescenariosthatleadtocircumstancesinwhichICANNwouldbeforcedtoassumeanongoingmanagementandoversightroleregardingcontentontheInternet,whichisinconsistentwithitstechnicalmandate.213

ICANNrequestedthattheIRPdeclarethattheICANNBoard’sdecisions,“absentashowingofbadfaith,”areentitledtodeferencefromICMandtheIRP.214Additionally,ICANNarguedthat,contrarytoICM’sclaims,itactedinfullaccordwithitsBylawsanditsArticlesofIncorporation.215

3.4EstablishingtheIRPProcess

TheIRPprocessisgovernedbytheInternationalArbitrationRulesoftheAmericanArbitrationAssociation’sInternationalCentreforDisputeResolution(ICDR)withsupplementaryproceduralmodificationsspecificallytailoredtoICANN.216TheICANNBylawsoffertheIRPprovider,ICDR,considerablelatitudeto“establishoperatingrulesandprocedures.”IntermsoftheproceduralaspectsoftheIndependentReview,theICANNBylawsstatethefollowing:

Inordertokeepthecostsandburdensofindependentreviewaslowaspossible,theIRPshouldconductitsproceedingsbyemailandotherwiseviatheInternettothemaximum

extentfeasible.Wherenecessary,theIRPmayholdmeetingsbytelephone.217

Inits“ResponsetoICM’sRequestforIndependentReview,”ICANNarguedthatthisprovisionindicatedthatthe“IndependentReviewProcessdoesnotspecificallycontemplatetheneedforalivehearing.”218Additionally,ICANNarguedthatthisprovisionalsoprovidedtheoptionforaquick,lowcostreview,conductedovertelephoneandemail.

TheBerkmanteamwasunabletolocateanofficialdocumentonrecordinwhichtheIRP,ICM,orICANNacknowledgearesolutiontothesequestionsraisedbyICANN.However,accordingtointerviewees,theIRPapparentlydeterminedinanunpublisheddecisionthatalthoughtheBylawsandSupplementaryProceduresencourageconductingtheIndependentReviewquicklyovertelephone,Internet,andotherelectronicmeans,theproceduresgivetheICDRpanelistscleardiscretiontoholdlivehearings.219Indeed,whatfollowedwasatwenty‐monthfullarbitrationprocesswithfulldocumentation,witnesstestimony,expertopinionandcross‐examination.

213Ibid.,38–39.214Ibid.,39ff.215Ibid.,43ff.216ICDR,“SupplementaryProceduresforICANNIndependentReviewProcess,”http://www.adr.org/sp.asp?id=32197.217ICANNBylaws,ArticleIV,Section3(10),August5,2010,http://icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm.218ICANN,“ICANN’sResponsetoICM’sIRPRequest,”September8,2008,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icann‐repsonse‐to‐icm‐request‐08sep08.pdf.219Interviews,SeptemberandOctober2010.


{33}

3.5MemorialontheMerits,WitnessStatements,andExpertReports

OnJanuary22,2008,ICMfileditsmemorialonthemerits,outliningICANN’sorganizationalhistoryanditssuccessivecallsforproposalsfornewTLDs.ICMreaffirmeditsargumentthatICANNhadviolateditsArticlesofIncorporationanditsBylawsandthatICANN’sactionswereinconsistentwith“relevantprinciplesofInternationalLaw”and“relevantprinciplesofCalifornialaw.”220ICMalsosubmittedtestimonyfromStuartLawley(ChairmanandPresidentofICM),J.Beckwith(“Becky”)Burr(formeradvisortotheFTC,formeradvisortotheNTIA,andlegalcounseltoICMinconnectionwithits2004sTLDsubmission),ElizabethWilliams(consultanttoICANNduringitssolicitationsforTLDproposals),MiltonMueller(professorattheSyracuseUniversitySchoolofInformationStudies),andJackGoldsmith(professoratHarvardLawSchool).221

InitsresponsetoICM’smemorialonthemerits,ICANNarguedthatICMhadmischaracterizedthelawsapplyingtotheIRPproceedings,thatICM’sfactualclaimswereincorrect,andthatICANNhadactedincompleteaccordwithitsArticlesofIncorporationanditsBylaws.222ICANNalsosubmittedtestimonyfromVintCerf(then‐VPatGoogle,formerChairmanoftheBoardatICANN),PaulTwomey(then‐CEOandPresidentofICANN,formerChairmanoftheGAC),AlejandroPisanty(formerBoardmemberofICANN),andDavidCaron(professoroflawatUCBerkeley,arbitrator).223

3.6TheIRP’sDeclaration

OnFebruary19,2010,theIRPdecided2–1infavorofICM.224Threekeyholdingscamefromthisdecision.First,thepaneldeterminedthattheholdingsoftheIRPareadvisoryinnatureanddonotconstitutebindingarbitralawards.225Second,thepaneldeterminedthat“theactionsanddecisionsoftheICANNBoardarenotentitledtodeferencewhetherbyapplicationofthe‘businessjudgmentrule’orotherwise;theyaretobeappraisednotdeferentiallybutobjectively.”226Finally,theIRPalsodeterminedthat“theBoardofICANNinadoptingitsresolutionsofJune1,2005,foundthattheapplicationofICMRegistryforthe.xxxTLDmettherequiredsponsorshipcriteria.”227

220ICANN,“ICM’sMemorialontheMerits,”January22,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icm‐memorial‐on‐merits‐22jan09‐en.pdf,iv–v.221ICANN,“WitnessStatementsandExpertReportSubmittedinSupportofICM’sMemorialontheMerits,”January22,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/supporting‐documentation‐for‐icmmemorial‐22jan09‐en.pdf.222ICANN,“ICANN’sResponsetoICM’sMemorialontheMerits,”May8,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/icann‐response‐for‐icm‐memorial‐on‐merits‐08may09‐en.pdf.223ICANN,“WitnessStatementsandExpertReportsubmittedinsupportofICANN’sResponsetoICM’sMemorialontheMerits,”May8,2009,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm‐v‐icann/supporting‐documentation‐icann‐response‐08may09‐en.pdf.224ICANN,“IndependentReviewPanelDeclaration,”February19,2010,http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icmv‐icann/irp‐panel‐declaration‐19feb10‐en.pdf.225Ibid.,70.226Ibid.227Ibid.


{34}

TheIRPnotedthatalthoughthere“isameasureofambiguityinthepertinentprovisionsoftheBylaws,”theuseofthephrase“todeclarewhetheranactionorinactionoftheBoardwasinconsistent”supportedaninterpretationthatIRPdecisionswereintendedtobeadvisory,andnotbindingontheICANNBoard.Inparticular,theIRPlikenedthistoarecommendationratherthanabindingorder.Moreover,theIRPalsodescribedtheprovisionofArticleIV,Section3(15),whichstates,“wherefeasible,theBoardshallconsidertheIRPdeclarationattheBoard’snextmeeting”asa“relaxedtemporalproviso”wheretheBoardhas“todonomorethanconsidertheIRPdeclaration.” 228Ultimately,theBoardfoundthattheloosenatureofthelanguage“emphasize[d]that[theIRPdeclaration]isnotbinding.”229Next,theIRPdeterminedthatIndependentReviewisconducteddenovoand,thus,“ICANNBoarddecisionsdonotenjoyadeferentialstandardofreview.”230Onthispoint,theIRPdeterminedthattheArticlesofIncorporationandBylaws,whichrequire,amongotherthings,“ICANNtocarryoutitsactivitiesinconformitywithrelevantprinciplesofinternationallaw,donotspecifyorimplythattheInternationalReviewProcessprovidedforshall(orshallnot)accorddeferencetodecisionsoftheICANNBoard.”TheIRPalsofoundthatthatasaCaliforniacorporation,ICANNmaycallonthe“businessjudgmentrule”whenrelevantprovisionsintheArticlesofIncorporationandBylawsareotherwiseabsent.231

AfteranalyzingtheeventssurroundingtheJune1,2005BoarddecisiontoenterintonegotiationswithICM,theIRPdeterminedthatthe“reconsiderationofsponsorshipcriteria,oncetheBoardhadfoundthemtohavebeenmet,wasnotinaccordwithdocumentedpolicy.”232

3.7IRPProcessObservationsBasedonBerkmanCaseStudyInterviews

As previously noted, the ICM request for independent review was the first to be heard by an IRP. The case poses several questions related to the IRP process and the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Bylaws.

Given the cost and lengthiness of the IRP proceedings, several interviewees questioned whether the IRP provides an accessible and widely applicable means for reviewing the ICANN Board’s decisions. Some interviewees stated that the high cost of the proceedings meant that it offers a venue for only the wealthiest of participants and is not a viable option for the vast majority of ICANN stakeholders. Others asserted that the cost, risk, and duration of the IRP will mean that no others will be likely to appeal ICANN decisions via this mechanism, even among those with the financial resources to do so.233

InadditiontothequestionsraisedaboutlimitsoftheIRPasanaccountabilitymechanism,othersquestionedhowICANN’sinterpretationoftheprocessreflectsonICANN’scommitmentto

228Ibid.,61(emphasisadded).229Ibid.230Ibid.231Ibid.,62.232Ibid.,68.233Interviews,SeptemberandOctober2010.


{35}

accountability.SomeinterviweesexpressedthebeliefthatICANN'sinterpretationoftheIRP—thattheprocessshouldnotentaillivetestimony,thatICANNshouldbeoffereddeferenceunderthebusinessjudgmentrule,andthattheIRP’sdecisionshouldnotbebindingontheICANNBoard—wasinconsistentwithanorganizationwithamandatetoensurethatitisaccountabletoitsstakeholders.234

PerceptionsalsovariedwithregardtotheultimateeffectivenessoftheIRPasanaccountabilitymechanisminthisspecificcase.Someassertedthatthisprocessdemonstratedaccountability,giventhatanapplicantforanewTLDwasabletoinitiatethereviewprocessandarguetheircaseonthemeritsbeforeindependentarbitrators,andindoingsocompelledICANNtodefendthebasisofitsactions.Moreover,IRP’sdecisionappearstohaveconvincedICANNtoreverseitsdecision.OtherintervieweesexpressedtheopinionthattheabsenseofabindingresolutionfromtheIRPisindicativeofthefundamentallackofaccountabilityatICANN.235

234Interviews,SeptemberandOctober2010.235Interviews,SeptemberandOctober2010.

Documents

Accountability and Transparency at ICANN · the creation of new gTLDs would be desirable, in light of intellectual property rights and other issues.6 On April 19, 2000, the DNSO recommended