Reconsideration: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
==Summary Table of Requests== | ==Summary Table of Requests== | ||
The following table presents the reconsideration requests submitted to ICANN, their subject matter, and their disposition. | The following table presents the reconsideration requests submitted to ICANN, their subject matter, and their disposition. | ||
* "Deny" in the "Recommendation" and "Board Action" columns means that no action was taken regarding the reconsideration request (i.e., the request was denied). | |||
* The "Dismissed?" column designates whether the request was summarily dismissed under the then-current standards for dismissal. In many cases, even if the committee's recommendation noted that a request could be summarily dismissed for procedural reasons, the reviewing committee would still address the substance of the request. In such cases, the "Dismissed?" column will read "No*" and the notes column will identify the justifications for dismissal. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 127: | Line 128: | ||
| The committee, in its recommendations regarding all of these requests, prefaced their analysis of the specific request with a general overview of the selection process. | | The committee, in its recommendations regarding all of these requests, prefaced their analysis of the specific request with a general overview of the selection process. | ||
|} | |} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
[[Category:Accountability Mechanisms]] | [[Category:Accountability Mechanisms]] | ||
Revision as of 23:53, 4 January 2022
Reconsideration is one of ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms. This option is provided in the ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 2. Any person or entity materially affected by an action (or inaction) of ICANN may request reconsideration of that action by the ICANN Board.[1]
Matters Subject to Reconsideration[edit | edit source]
Requestors may submit reconsideration requests if they have been adversely affected by:
(i) One or more Board or Staff actions or inactions that contradict ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and/or established ICANN policy(ies);
(ii) One or more actions or inactions of the Board or Staff that have been taken or refused to be taken without consideration of material information, except where the Requestor could have submitted, but did not submit, the information for the Board's or Staff's consideration at the time of action or refusal to act; or
(iii) One or more actions or inactions of the Board or Staff that are taken as a result of the Board's or staff's reliance on false or inaccurate relevant information.[2]
The ICANN Empowered Community (EC) may submit a "Community Reconsideration Request" if approved under the rules listed in the "EC Mechanism" Annex of the Bylaws[3]; and if the matter relates to the exercise of the powers and rights of the EC as defined by the Bylaws.[4] Annex D outlines the process through which "Decisional Participants" may petition the EC to submit a Community Reconsideration Request.[3]
Applicability to Objections to Applications, New gTLD Program[edit | edit source]
The reconsideration process was available for challenges to expert determinations rendered by third party dispute resolution service provider (DRSP) panels in the New gTLD Program, if the panels or staff failed to follow established policies or processes in reaching the expert determination.[5] In other words, the substance of an expert determination could not be challenged, but a failure in procedural requirements could be.
Excluded from Reconsideration[edit | edit source]
The Bylaws expressly exclude the following subjects from the reconsideration mechanism:
- Disputes relating to country code top-level domain ("ccTLD") delegations and re-delegations;
- Disputes relating to Internet numbering resources; and
- Disputes relating to protocol parameters.[6]
Process[edit | edit source]
Under the current Bylaws, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) reviews and considers the requests.[7] In previous versions of the reconsideration process, the Board Governance Committee was responsible for the full review process (with no referral to the ICANN Ombudsman as described below).[8] If the committee determines that the reconsideration request fails to meet the requirements specified in Article 4.2 of the Bylaws, or is "frivolous," it can summarily dismiss the request on that basis.[9] Dismissal on the sole basis that the request is frivolous is rare.[10]
If the reconsideration request passes through the initial review, the BAMC refers the matter to the ICANN Ombudsman for investigation. In the event that the Ombudsman must recuse themselves, the BAMC will investigate on its own. The Ombudsman may employ the services of experts to assist with their investigation.[11] In addition, the BAMC may request additional information from the requestor, third parties, ICANN staff, and anyone else it deems relevant to the inquiry.[12]
The Ombudsman (or the BAMC on its own behalf) completes a substantive evaluation of the reconsideration request. Following the completion of the substantive evaluation, the BAMC shall review and consider all information gathered in the written record, including supplemental information from any of the sources described in Sections 4.2(m)-(o).[13]
The BAMC then submits a non-binding recommendation to the full Board for its consideration. The Board makes the final determination on the reconsideration request.[14]
Urgent Requests[edit | edit source]
The requestor may request urgent review of an action or inaction by the Board if they believe that "timing requirements of the process set forth in...Section 4.2 are too long." An approved request for urgent review causes the entire process to operate under expedited time frames.[15] Only actions by the Board are subject to urgent review.[16]
Summary Table of Requests[edit | edit source]
The following table presents the reconsideration requests submitted to ICANN, their subject matter, and their disposition.
- "Deny" in the "Recommendation" and "Board Action" columns means that no action was taken regarding the reconsideration request (i.e., the request was denied).
- The "Dismissed?" column designates whether the request was summarily dismissed under the then-current standards for dismissal. In many cases, even if the committee's recommendation noted that a request could be summarily dismissed for procedural reasons, the reviewing committee would still address the substance of the request. In such cases, the "Dismissed?" column will read "No*" and the notes column will identify the justifications for dismissal.
| Reconsideration Request | Subject | Dismissed? | Recommendation | Board Action | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 99-1: Eric Brunner & Bob Gough | Proposing the creation of a separate Indigenous Intellectual Property Constituency | No | Deny | Deny | |
| 99-2: Gene Marsh | Inclusion of Top Level Domain Association in the Names Council | Yes | Deny | Deny | The original request did not include the required information, and a request from ICANN to Marsh to provide additional information went unanswered. Request was also time-barred. |
| 99-3: Mr. Perelman | Allowing the registration of ?.com and ~.com | Yes | Deny | Deny | There was no action by the Board that could be reconsidered. |
| 99-4: Karl Auerbach | Revocation of the agreement between the Dept. of Commerce, ICANN, and Network Solutions | No | Deny | Deny | |
| 00-1: Russ Smith | Reconsideration of the decision to cancel 800+ accidentally registered domain names with trailing hyphens (i.e., abc-.com) | No | Deny | Deny | For a brief period of time, NSI's software enabled people to register names with trailing hyphens, which was contrary to both RFC and existing policy. |
| 00-2: Nigel Roberts | Contents of request withheld by request | Probably | No Recommendation Issued | Did not act | Both the request and ICANN's response are not published, at the request of Mr. Roberts |
| 00-3: Paul Wilson obo APNIC | Inclusion of term "globally specified applications" in IANA Functions Contract | No | No Recommendation Issued | Did not act | It is unclear whether this request was resolved through other means. No recommendation was ever issued. |
| 00-4: Bret Fausett | ICANN's failure to timely publish board meeting minutes from April 6 | No | Revise Bylaws | Bylaws for publication of meeting minutes revised after public comment | |
| 00-5: James Trefil obo Adam Corelli | Requestor lost a UDRP case and appealed in court; wanted the link to the UDRP decision removed from ICANN's website | No | Deny | Deny | |
| 00-6: A. J. L. de Breed | Rejection of an application for a New TLD under the 2000 program because it was accompanied by a $1,000 check, rather than the required $50,000 fee | No | Deny | Deny | |
| 00-7: D. Alexander Floum | ICANN Staff posted its evaluation of Floum's company, IODesign, as part of IODesign's application for a new TLD. The evaluation categorized IODesign's technical and business readiness as "poor." Floum wanted that evaluation to be removed. | No | Deny | Deny | |
| 00-8: Ivan Vachovsky 00-9: Roy Goldberg 00-10: Paul Stahura 00-11: Sarnoff Corporation 00-12: The .TV Corporation 00-13: Image Online Design, Inc. 00-14: SRI International 00-16 Telnic Limited 01-2: .Kids Domains, Inc. |
The listed reconsiderations requests all dealt with applications under ICANN's 2000 New TLD pilot program which did not succeed. All of them asked for reconsideration of those applications. | No | Deny | Deny | The committee, in its recommendations regarding all of these requests, prefaced their analysis of the specific request with a general overview of the selection process. |
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ ICANN.org - Reconsideration
- ↑ Article 4.2(c), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Annex D to the ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Article 4.2(b), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ New gTLD Program - Applicant Guidebook
- ↑ Article 4.2(d), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Articles 4.2(e) and (k), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ see, e.g., the Accountability Mechanisms of the Bylaws in effect as amended in July 2014
- ↑ Article 4.2(k), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ See, e.g., Request 16.2 - Commercial Connect LLC, February 25, 2016, where despite noting Commercial Connect's abuse of "all of ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms," the BAMC nonetheless provides an analysis on the sufficiency of the request.
- ↑ Article 4.2(l), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Articles 4.2(m)-(o), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Article 4.2(p), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Article 4.2(r), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Article 4.2(s), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ See Reconsideration Request 21-3, where the BAMC denied Dot Hip Hop LLC's request for urgent reconsideration of inaction by ICANN staff