Independent Review Process: Difference between revisions

The '''Independent Review Process (IRP)''' is an [[ICANN Accountability]] mechanism that provides third-party review of ICANN's actions. Particularly, to "Ensure that ICANN does not exceed the scope of its Mission and otherwise complies with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws" and "Ensure that ICANN is accountable to the global Internet community and Claimants."<ref name="bylaws">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4-3 ICANN Bylaws, Article 4.3], as amended November 28, 2019</ref>

| Afilias is the prevailing party in relation to the liability portion of its core claims and its Request for Emergency Interim Relief; ICANN acted contrary to its Articles and Bylaws, breaching the Guidebook and Auction Rules through its arrangements with Verisign. However, the Respondent (ICANN) was designated as the prevailing party in regard to all aspects of the Claimant’s requests for relief ''other than'' (a) the request for a declaration that ICANN acted inconsistently with its Articles and Bylaws and (b) the outstanding aspects of the Rule 7 Claim.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-afilias-final-declaration-redacted-25may21-en.pdf Final Declaration, Afilias IRP, ICANN Files]</ref> The Panel denied the Claimant’s request to disqualify NDC’s bid for .WEB and proceed with contracting the Registry agreement for .WEB with the Claimant, in exchange for a price to be specified by the Panel and paid by the Claimant.

| withdrawn<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/afilias-brs-tin-llc-v-icann-2015-10-12-en IRP Request Withrawal, Afilias et al IRP, Resources, ICANN]</ref>

| the ICANN Board’s 12 October 2014 Decision and Action (as preceded by its February 2014 Decision and Action) is a “decision or action by the Board” that is “inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation of Bylaws” of ICANN and “materially affected” the Claimant. However, Its ability to do so must be preserved as being in the best interests of the Internet community as a whole. ICANN shall not be responsible for bearing all costs of the proceedings. Instead, pursuant to Article 11 of the Supplementary Rules, the IRP Panel determines that no costs shall be allocated to the Claimant as the prevailing party. Consequently, each Party shall bear its own costs for this IRP Panel proceeding.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-corn-lake-final-declaration-17oct16-en.pdf Final Declaration, Corn Lake IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| ICANN failed to consider evidence of bias in the Expert Determination, should reconsider its reconsideration decisions, and has to reimburse the claimant<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-dot-sport-final-declaration-31jan17-en.pdf Final Declaration, Dot Sport IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| IRP Request made in relation to the .hotel gTLD by Despegar Online SRL, Donuts Inc., Famous Four Media Limited, Fegistry LLC, and Radix FZC is denied. ICANN was the prevailing party in the .hotel IRP;  IRP Request made in relation to .eco gTLD by Little Birch, LLC, and Minds + Machines Group Limited is denied; ICANN as the prevailing party in the .eco IRP. Declares that the fees and expenses of the IRP Panel members, totaling US$113,351.52, and the fees and expenses of the ICDR, totaling US$11,500.00, shall be born as to half by ICANN, and as to the other half collectively by Despegar Online SRL, Donuts Inc., Famous Four Media Limited, Fegistry LLC, Radix FZC, Little Birch, LLC and Minds +Machines Group Limited ("Applicants"). Therefore, ICANN shall reimburse the Applicants collectively the sum of $5,750.00 representing that portion of said fees and expenses in excess of the apportioned costs previously incurred by the Applicants.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-despegar-online-et-al-final-declaration-12feb16-en.pdf Final Declaration, Little Birch, Despegar, et al IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| the Claimant [[Gulf Cooperation Council]] (“GCC”) was the prevailing Party. ICANN was inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. However, the ICANN Board should take no further action on the ".persiangulf" gTLD application, and in specific not sign the registry agreement with Asia Green. The IRP awarded all costs to the GCC as the prevailing Party.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-gcc-final-declaration-costs-15dec16-en.pdf Final Declaration, GCC IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| ICANN prevailed; [[Donuts]] bore all costs except ICANN's own legal fees.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-donuts-final-declaration-05may16-en.pdf Final Declaration, Donuts IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| [[Dot Registry]] is the prevailing party; ICANN Board failed to apply the proper standards in its reconsiderations and acted inconsistently with the AoI and Bylaws and ICANN bore all the costs of the IRP<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-dot-registry-final-declaration-redacted-29jul16-en.pdf Final Declaration, Dot Registry IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| ICANN is the prevailing party; Merck bore all costs<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irp-merck-final-declaration-11dec15-en.pdf Final Declaration, Merck IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| ICANN is the prevailing party; however, the IRP costs were split between the parties in a 60% (Vistaprint) / 40%<br />(ICANN) proportion. The IRP recommended that ICANN’s Board exercise its judgment on the question of whether an<br /><br />additional review mechanism is appropriate to re-evaluate the Third Expert’s determination in the Vistaprint SCO<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/vistaprint-v-icann-final-declaration-09oct15-en.pdf Final Declaration, Vistaprint IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| closed<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cardenas-venino-to-rodenbaugh-levee-17jul14-en.pdf Letter of Closure, Correspondence, ICANN Files]</ref>

| [[.booking|Booking.com]]

| [[.hotels]]

| ICANN is the prevailing party; however, the costs were split evenly between the parties and ICANN should consider the string similarity issues raised ahead of the next round of the [[New gTLD Program]]<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-03mar15-en.pdf Final Declaration, Booking.com IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| the Board violated ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and the Applicant Guidebook by: <br />• Discriminating against DCA and wrongfully assisting the AUC and ZACR to obtain rights to the .AFRICA gTLD;<br />• Failing to apply ICANN’s procedures in a neutral and objective manner, with procedural fairness when it accepted the GAC Objection Advice against DCA; and<br />• Failing to apply its procedures in a neutral and objective manner, with procedural fairness when it approved the BGC’srecommendation not to reconsider the NGPC’s acceptance of the GAC Objection Advice against DCA. DCA is the prevailing party and is entitled to its costs. The IRP recommended that ICANN cease all preparations to delegate the .AFRICA gTLD to ZACR; permit DCA’s application to proceed through the remainder of the new gTLD application process; and compensate DCA for the costs incurred as a result of ICANN’s violations of its Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and AGB.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-declaration-2-redacted-09jul15-en.pdf Final Declaration, DCA Trust IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| jointly dismissed<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/joint-letter-dismissal-08may13-en.pdf Letter of Joint Dismissal, Manwin IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>

| [[ICM Registry]] is the prevailing party<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/-panel-declaration-19feb10-en.pdf Final Declaration, ICM IRP, ICANN Files]</ref>