nanog mailing list archives
Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet
From: Barry Shein <bzs () world std com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:03:35 -0400
On March 27, 2011 at 04:56 johnl () iecc com (John Levine) wrote:
What changed ICANN's mind between the ruling in 2007 and the ruling in 2010?The growing certainty of an expensive and very embarassing lawsuit if they turned ICM down. Despite the clear lack of industry support for .XXX, ICM carefully jumped through every hoop, dotted every i, and crossed every t in the 2004 application process and the subsequent appeal and review processes. I expect the board and staff really really would not want to have to answer questions under oath like "who did you talk to at the US Department of Commerce about the .XXX application and what did you say?" and "why did you vote against .XXX when they followed the same rules as the TLDs you voted for?"
This is purely speculative. The correct answer to the question vis a vis 2007-2010 is that a process specified by the ICANN by-laws was followed. This included, significantly, review by an independent non-binding arbitration panel agreed to by both parties. This took some time. Shortly after that 3 member panel issued their recommendation, 2 felt ICANN was violating their own by-laws in rejecting .XXX, one felt (all this is of course overly brief) the by-laws allowed them to reject or accept the application. Then, in December 2010 (Cartagena) the issue was referred to the GAC, ICANN's Govt Advisory Committee who had some shared power in the final decision. Or let's say what power the GAC had was then also an issue, besides their substantive recommendations. And at the San Francisco ICANN meeting earlier this month the ICANN Board of Directors approved a motion to move .XXX along (you are free to read the motion.) That's much of what happened 2007-2010. AS AN ASIDE I don't know that the mere threat of an "expensive" or "embarrassing" lawsuit would be very compelling. Most everything you allude to is practically public knowledge anyhow. For a $65M/year organization like ICANN lawsuits are perhaps not their favorite way to spend money but they're not terribly expensive, it's not a hugely complicated case and would likely only revolve around whether ICANN adhered to their own by-laws or similar (contracts and representations with ICM, prevailing law, undue influence, etc.) Maybe you meant there was a possibility of an expensive judgment? Well, a lot of things happen between the filing of a lawsuit and a judgment, including the possibility of out of court settlements of various sorts which could include simply yielding, i.e., saying ok you (ICM) can have .XXX. My guess is if ICM won such a lawsuit, they get .XXX and perhaps ICANN would have to remunerate them some expenses, and if ICM lost then they lost, they'd get nothing. But this is all counter-factual. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Current thread:
- RE: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet, (continued)
- RE: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Stefan Fouant (Mar 26)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Eric Brunner-Williams (Mar 27)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet John Levine (Mar 27)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Eric Brunner-Williams (Mar 27)
- Re: not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet John Levine (Mar 27)
- Re: not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Eric Brunner-Williams (Mar 27)
- Re: not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet John R. Levine (Mar 27)
- Re: not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Eric Brunner-Williams (Mar 27)
- Re: not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet John R. Levine (Mar 27)
- Re: not really ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Tony Finch (Mar 29)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Barry Shein (Mar 27)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Donald Eastlake (Mar 27)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet William Herrin (Mar 27)
- RE: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet George Bonser (Mar 26)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Marshall Eubanks (Mar 26)
- RE: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Stefan Fouant (Mar 26)
- Re: ICANN approves .XXX red-light district for the Internet Mans Nilsson (Mar 26)