Hello All, Note that the Independent Review Panel has issued its findings with respect to ICM (applicant for .xxx in the last new gTLD round) and ICANN. It will be something else for the Board to consider in Nairobi. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://www.icann.org/en/irp/icm-v-icann/irp-panel-declaration-19feb10-en .pdf 152. The Panel concludes, for the reasons stated above, that: First, the holdings of the Independent Review Panel are advisory in nature; they do not constitute a binding arbitral award. Second, the actions and decisions of the ICANN Board are not entitled to deference whether by application of the "business judgment" rule or otherwise; they are to be appraised not deferentially but objectively. Third, the provision of Article 4 of ICANN's Articles of Incorporation prescribing that ICANN "shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law," requires ICANN to operate in conformity with relevant general principles of law (such as good faith) as well as relevant principles of international law, applicable international conventions, and the law of the State of California. Fourth, the Board of ICANN in adopting its resolutions of June 1, 2005, found that the application of ICM Registry for the .XXX sTLD met the required sponsorship criteria. Fifth, the Board's reconsideration of that finding was not consistent with the application of neutral, objective and fair documented policy. Sixth, in respect of the first foregoing holding, ICANN prevails; in respect of the second foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of the third foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; in respect of the fourth foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails; and in respect of the fifth foregoing holding, ICM Registry prevails. Accordingly, the prevailing party is ICM Registry. It follows that, in pursuance of Article IV, Section 3(12) of the Bylaws, ICANN shall be responsible for bearing all costs of the IRP Provider. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees. Therefore, the administrative fees and expenses of the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, totaling $4,500.00, shall be borne entirely by ICANN, and the compensation and expenses of the Independent Review Panel, totaling $473,744.91, shall be borne entirely by ICANN. ICANN shall accordingly reimburse ICM Registry with the sum of $241,372.46, representing that portion of said fees and expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by ICM Registry. Judge Tevrizian is in agreement with the first foregoing conclusion but not the subsequent conclusions. His opinion follows.