Earlier this year, the organization that oversees the domain name system, ICANN, saw the first use of its Independent Review Process – its highest level of review for decisions that affect billions.
The IRP decided conclusively against ICANN. The issue was whether the organization had been right to deny the application for dot-xxx as a new Internet extension: the Review Panel said it was not. Earlier today, the Board announced that it would accept the Review Panel’s findings and set in place a multi-stage process of approval before the extension – intended purely for adult content – is added to the Internet’s “root”.
In doing so, the Board accepted two of the five conclusions of the Review Panel. First, that the company behind dot-xxx, ICM Registry, had met the required sponsorship criteria for its application; and second that the finding it had not meet the criteria “was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy”.
Earlier it had also accepted the first conclusion that the Review Panel drew: that the Panel’s declaration was advisory and did not constitute a binding arbitral award.
But what of the other two?
These two were crucial in that they were nothing to do with the dot-xxx case but were instead about the independent review process itself i.e. deciding the method by which the organization would be held accountable in future.
Popularity: 2% [?]
{ 0 comments }
