Reconsideration

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.

Matters Subject to Reconsideration

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.

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; and if the matter relates to the exercise of the powers and rights of the EC as defined by the Bylaws. Annex D outlines the process through which "Decisional Participants" may petition the EC to submit a Community Reconsideration Request.

Applicability to Objections to Applications, New gTLD Program

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. In other words, the substance of an expert determination could not be challenged, but a failure in procedural requirements could be.

Excluded from Reconsideration

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.

Process

Under the current Bylaws, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) reviews and considers the requests. 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). 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. Dismissal on the sole basis that the request is frivolous is rare.

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. In addition, the BAMC may request additional information from the requestor, third parties, ICANN staff, and anyone else it deems relevant to the inquiry.

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).

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.

Urgent Requests

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. Only actions by the Board are subject to urgent review.

Summary Table of Requests

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.
• The requests are numbered by ICANN in order received by year. No requests were received in 2003, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

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: Bruce 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 Department 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
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 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.
01-1: Beltraide	Request to reconsider delegation of .biz, because of confusion with the .bz ccTLD	No	Deny	Deny	"ICANN could not responsibly reject proposals for new TLDs merely because the applicants have requested TLDs that include letters also found in country-code TLDs such as <.bz.>"
01-3: Monsoon Assets Limited (BVI)]	Request to reconsider non-selection of Monsoon's application for the New TLD pilot	No*	Deny	Deny	Reconsideration request was not timely submitted and did not substantiate its claims
01-4: Verio	ICANN's changes to the RAA prohibiting the use of WHOIS information for unsolicited marketing communications	No	Refer to DNSO, but make no changes at present	Accepted recommendation
01-5: Michael Froomkin and Jonathan Weinberg	Withdraw ICP-3 from the ICP Series	No	Deny, but adopt formal process of Board approval of designation to ICP	Followed recommendation
01-6: Russ Smith	Arguing for increasing publicity of materials relevant to UDRP procedures, standards, and rules	No	Forward suggestions to UDRP Providers	Approved the committee's suggestion	Responsibility for training third party neutrals rests with UDRP service providers, not ICANN
01-7: Edward Hasbrouck	RAA for .aero should be revised	No	Deny	Deny
02-1: David Ogden	Denial of registration of pops.int by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants	No	Reverse Decision	Reversed Decision
02-2: Russ Smith	Enforce transfer obligations to comply with transfer policies	No	Deny	Deny
02-3: Tony So	Reversing deletion and loss of control of So's domain name	No	Subsequent events made the issue moot, so no action required; however, recommend a redemption grace period policy for registrants	Followed recommendation regarding a grace period
02-4: Ethan Katsch	Dissolution of the Independent Review Nominating Committee	No	Deny	Deny
02-5: Dotster	Board resolution modifying agreement with Verisign to allow "Wish List Service"	No	Deny	Deny
02-6: VeriSign	Board resolution 02-100	No	Modify Condition C to better meet the needs of consumers; no other action	Approved recommendation
04-1: Bret Fausett	Failure to post minutes of board meeting within timeline	No	Post was a day late; board should consider audio recordings of meetings; recommend staff training re: timelines	Approved recommendations
04-2: Danny Lee Younger	ga@dnso.org listserv archives not working	No	Problem was resolved before request was addressed	No action	Apologizing for delays in responding, staff noted that "We currently receive tens of thousands of pieces of spam for each legitimate request for reconsideration sent to reconsider@icann.org."
04-3: Network Solutions	Alleged approval of alterations to Verisign Registry Agreement	No	No recommendation	N/A	It seems possible that this request was overtaken by events surrounding the Site Finder litigation
05-1: Bret Fausett	Another missed deadline for posting of meeting minutes	No	Posting was late, although minimal impact b/c the affected public comment period deadline was extended; however, recommend real-time scribing of board meetings	Approved recommendation
05-2: Edward Hasbrouck	May 3, 2005 special meeting of the board was closed to outside observers	Yes			Ombudsman advised the committee that this request was no different from a complaint to the Ombuds office. Deemed frivolous.
06-1: Network Solutions, LLC, et. al.	Board approval of Verisign Settlement in February 2006	No*	Deny	Deny	Reconsideration requests are void if there was opportunity for requestors to make their opinions known to the board during public comment or other opportunities. Request also fails to substantiate or support its claims.
06-2: Danny Younger	Board approval of Verisign Settlement in February 2006	No*	Deny	Deny	"The Committee concludes that there are no grounds to proceed, as each of the grounds is either: (i) not an appropriate subject for reconsideration; (ii) already considered by the Board, or (iii) could have been brought to the Board's attention prior to the 28 February 2006 approval."
06-3: Marilyn Cade	Protesting ICANN GC decision that she could not run in a mid-term election for a vacated board seat. Cade resigned from the NomCom in order to run for the seat.	No*	Deny	Deny	Bylaws are "unambiguous" regarding former NomCom members' eligibility to be selected for board service; requestor fails to state a claim that would be subject to reconsideration
06-4: ICM Registry	Board rejection of Registry Agreement with ICM for .xxx	No	No recommendation - Request Withdrawn by ICM, October 2006	N/A
10-1: Michael Palage	Late publication of board meeting minutes	No	Posting was 10 hours late, so limited impact; but, recommend amendment of Bylaws requiring posting of board resolutions within 2 days, and preliminary report within 7 days.	Approved recommendation	Palage, in the public comments to the proposed Bylaws amendment, expressed disappointment
10-2: .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition	Approval of amendments to .JOBS Registry Agreement, permitting noncompanyname.jobs registrations & proposing a phased allocation of such names	No	Deny, but ICANN staff to closely monitor the rollout of these new names to ensure the registry complies with its charter	Approved recommendation	"…the BGC is not at all clear that it has a full picture of how Employ Media intends to implement the Phased Allocation Process.""
10-3: Michael Palage	Resolution approving description of High Security Top Level Domain program in the Applicant Guidebook	No*	Deny	Deny	No support for reconsideration based on the grounds listed in the Bylaws. BGC found that "Information that is not yet in existence cannot be considered “material information” for the purposes of the Reconsideration process.""
11-1: Michael Gende	Staff failure to assist Mr. Gende in obtaining zetamusic.com	No*	Deny	Deny	Failure to state a claim related to ICANN's mission.
12-1: International Olympic Committee	New gTLD Committee's inaction re: advice from GNSO suggesting additional protections for Red Cross, IOC	No	Deny; but, suggest that the New gTLD committee assess whether the time is now ripe to act on GNSO advice	New gTLD Committee resolved to review new information since original decision
12-2: GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency	Board Approval of the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) request of the registry operator for .CAT, Fundació PuntCAT	No	Deny; but amend a preliminary "wheras" clause from the resolution to avoid confusion regarding scope of the amendment	[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2012-08-28-en#2.a Deny reconsideration, amend "whereas" clause as recommended	Request for amendment was related to GDPR/WHOIS issues for a Spanish registry
13-1: Ummah Digital, Ltd.	Staff rejection of Ummah's application based on Support Applicant Review Panel's Findings under the New gTLD Round	No	Deny; refer to SUBPRO for possible lessons learned	Denied and referred to SUBPRO	"ICANN’s accountability mechanisms are not intended for instances where a requestor: (1) is fully aware of the potential risks and defined outcomes within a process; (2) chooses to participate within that process; and (3) when they experience an unfavorable but defined outcome, seeks relief from that outcome."
13-2: Nameshop	Staff rejection of Nameshop's change request, and application for financial assistance	No	Deny	Deny
13-3: Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group	Introduction of "prior offender" URLs in the Trademark Clearinghouse	No	Deny; but, the request raises important points wrt "policy" versus "implementation", and expanding the mechanisms of community consultation	Deny, and refer issues raised to ICANN staff for inclusion in the ongoing community conversation re: policy vs. implementation
13-4: DotConnectAfrica Trust	Rejection of DCA Trust's .africa application in the New gTLD Program	No	Deny	Deny
13-5: Booking.com B.V.	Placement of .hotels and .hoteis in a contention set	No	Deny	Deny
13-6: Hotel Top Level Domain S.a.r.l.	Dismissal of dotHotel's objection to Booking.com's .hotels application	No	Deny	Deny
13-7: Dish DBS Corp.	Dish attempted to register .direct and DirectTV's objection was upheld	No	Deny	Deny
13-8: Merck KGaA	New gTLD Committee's recommendation that third party neutrals consider extenuating circumstances regarding missed objection deadlines	No	Deny	Deny	Merck KGaA, a German company had applied for .merck and .emerck. The American Merck & Co.'s objections to the two applications were ten and eleven minutes late, respectively
13-9: Amazon EU S.a.r.l.	Amazon attempted to register a string that represented the Japanese translation of "online shopping." Commercial Connect objected to the application based on their application for .shop	No	Deny	Deny	Two 13-9 and 13-10 represented two different outcomes on similar facts - foreign language translations of "shopping" and their impact on .shop. The BGC recommended that a report be prepared regarding the two string confusion cases, and that neither string proceed to contracting until the NGPC had an opportunity to review.
13-10: Commercial Connect, LLC	The partner case to 13-9 - here Top Level Domain Holdings applied for a string representing a Chinese translation of "shop" and Commercial Connect's objection was denied	No	Deny	Deny	See above. The same concluding paragraph in both 13-9 and 13-10 states: "[T]he BGC recommended that staff provide a report to the NGPC, for delivery in 30 days, setting out options for dealing with the situation raised within this Request, namely the differing outcomes of the String Confusion Objection Dispute Resolution process in similar disputes involving Amazon’s Applied-for String and TLDH’s Applied-for String. In addition, the BGC suggested that the strings not proceed to contracting prior to staff’s report being produced and considered by the NGPC."
13-11: Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group	Asking the board to review the sufficiency of the staff reponse to the NCSG's DIDP request regarding information related to the TMCH "Strawman" (which included the "50 prior offender" provision which was the subject of RR 13-3) and RR 13-3.	No*	Deny	No action	Under the then-current Bylaws, the BGC had the discretion to deny reconsideration requests regarding ICANN staff action or inaction without reference to the board. This request did not state "propergrounds for reconsideration" and was denied without further consideration. This is similar to the current "dismissal" powers of the BAMC.
13-12: Tencent Holdings Limited	Tencent applied for 微博 and .Weibo. Sina, the mark holder for 微博, objected to both applications and the objections were sustained.	No	Deny	Deny
13-13: Christopher Barron	Rejection of GoPROUD's objection to dotgay LLC's application for .gay	No	Deny	Deny	The BGC's recommendation was moot by the time the NGPC considered it, as GoProud had dissolved and reformed, and Christopher Barron was not associated with the new entity, nor could he otherwise be contacted.
13-14: DERCars, LLC	Google submitted objections to the three applications for .cars, but only prevailed as it related to DERCars' application.	No	No action - request was withdrawn		It is unclear what, if any, work was done on this RR. In February 2014, DERCars became one of two applicants granted the right to appeal the inconsistent ruling.
13-15: Commercial Connect, LLC	Staff failure to invite Commercial Connect to begin the CPE process for .shop	No*	Deny	No action taken	As with RR 13-11, the BGC determined that Commercial Connect failed to state a claim under the rules of review, and so issued a final determination rather than a recommendation to the board.
13-16: dot Sport Limited	SportAccord's objection to dot Sports' application for .sport was sustained	No*	Deny		Denied without recommendation to the NGPC. See also RR 14-10
13-17: GCCIX, W.L.L.	GCCIX applied for .GCC, which received objections from both the GAC and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The NGPC acted on the GAC advice and rejected the application	No	Deny	Deny
13-18: ILGA	ILGA's community objection to Afilias' application for .lgbt was rejected	No*	Deny	No action taken	Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
13-19: HOTREC	HOTREC lost a community objection proceeding related to .hotels; the RR contends that NGPC should have stayed that proceeding when it paused consideration of several "closed generic" applications to allow time to engage with the GAC.	No	Deny	Deny
13-20: DotSecure, Inc.	DotSecure applied for .bank. The Int'l Banking Federation objected and the objection was sustained	No*	Deny	No action taken	Denied without recommendation to the NGPC: "There is no indication that ICANN violated any policy or process in accepting the determination sustaining IBF’s Objection to the Requester’s application for .BANK.
13-21: European Lotteries	Requester objected to Afilias' application for .lotto, and lost	No*	Deny	No action taken	Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
12-22: DotMusic	DotMusic's community objection to Amazon's .music application did not prevail	No*	Deny	No action taken	Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
13-23: Ruby Pike, LLC	The Independent Objector prevailed in a "limited public interest" objection to Ruby Pike's application for .hospital	No*	Deny	No action taken	Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
14-1: Medistry LLC	The Independent Objector submitted a objection to Medistry's application for .med. Medistry appealled on the grounds that the IO cannot object unless there is at least one public comment that opposes the application.	No	Reversed; Medistry's application allowed to proceed	No action taken	BGC issued the reversal itself
14-2: World Gold Council	The WGC filed a community objection to a rival application for .gold; the objection failed because it did not represent a "clearly delineated community"	No	Deny	No action taken
14-3: Corn Lake, LLC	The Independent Objector submitted an objection to Corn Lake's application for .charity and succeeded	No	Deny	No action taken
14-4: Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America	The Union's community objection regarding an application for .kosher was rejected	No	Deny	No action taken	The panel's decision took the applicant's Public Interest Commitments into account
14-5: Vistaprint Limited	Web.com Group successfully objected to Vistaprint's .webs application on string confusion grounds	No	Deny	No action taken
14-6: Dot Rugby Limited	The International Rugby Board successfully objected to this and another application for .rugby	No	Deny	No action taken
14-7: Asia Green IT System Ltd.	Requester filed for .islam and .halal and was met with a flurry of objections, GAC advice, and other issues. The NGPC deferred action until Asia Green resolved the conflicts. Asia Green appealed that deferral.	No	Deny	Deny
14-8: DotMusic	DotMusic's community objections to a number of .music and .band applications all failed	No	Deny	No action taken
14-9: Merck KGaA	Merck KGaA submitted legal rights objections to .merck and .merckmsd	No	Deny	No action taken
14-10: dot Sport Limited	Requesting reconsideration of community objection to .sport described in RR 13-16, above, and the BGC's assessment of an undisclosed & purportedly insurmountable conflict of interest on the part of the IRP panelist	No	Deny	Denied by resolution of the board
14-11: Commercial Connect, LLC	Commercial Connect's .shop application was placed "On Hold" pending multiple Accountability Mechanism proceedings	No*	Deny	No action taken	Request was late and, even if it was timely, failed to state a claim that warranted reconsideration
14-2: Tennis Australia	Tennis Australia's CPE application failed	No*	Deny	no action taken	Request failed to substantiate any claim that would be subject to reconsideration
14-13: European Commission 14-14: UK 14-15 and 14-25: France 14-16 and 14-17: Spain 14-18 and 14-24: Vinicultural & Geographical Indicator Organizations 14-19 and 14-26: Italy 14-20: Portugal 14-21: Luxembourg 14-22: Switzerland	Urging reconsideration of the delegation of .wine and .vin	No	Deny	Denied
14-23: Danielle F. Watson	moviestar.photo registration failed	Withdrawn by requester	No action	No action taken
14-27: Amazon EU S.a.r.l.	Amazon's applications for .amazon as well as Chinese and Japanese translations of the word, were rejected by the NGPC on the basis of GAC advice.	No	Deny	Denied	GAC Advice from ICANN 47
14-28: DotMusic	Requesting reconsideration of ICANN's acceptance of change requests from Amazon for its .music, .song, and .tunes applications after receipt of GAC advice regarding generic terms	No	Deny	No action taken
14-29: DotKids Foundation	ICANN deferred DotKids' application change request until the completion of the CPE process for .kids	No	Deny	No action taken
14-30, 14-32, and 14-33: Dot Registry, LLC	Dot Registry requested reconsideration of its failed CPE processes for .llc, .inc, and .llp	No	Deny	Board separately initiated an assessment of its relationship with its CPE panel provider]	Dot Registry ultimately withdrew all three RRs
14-31: TLDDOT GmbH	TLDDOT did not prevail in a CPE for .gmbh	No*	Deny	No action taken	Requester's areguments for reconsideration were almost entirely substantive, and therefore failed to establish a claim for reconsideration
14-34: Despegar Online SRL, DotHotel, Inc., dot Hotel Limited, Fegistry, LLC, Spring McCook, LLC, and Top Level Domain Holdings Limited	The six requesters were appealing Hotel Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l.'s successful CPE for .hotel	No	Deny	No action taken
14-35: Amazon EU S.a.r.l.	Reconsideration of the staff response to Amazon's DIDP request regarding RR 14-27	No	Deny	No action taken	"As there is no indication that ICANN violated any policy or procedure with respect to its response to the Requester’s DIDP Request, and given that portions of Request 14-35 are simply premature as ICANN has stated that it is still reviewing documents, the instant Request 14-35 should not proceed."
14-36: Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council (ASWPC)	ICANN denied ASWPC's request to modify its application for .spa	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration
14-37: iRegistry Ltd.	NGPC's adoption of the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework	No	Deny	Deny	iRegistry did not prove that it was actually adversely affected by the adoption of the policy
14-38: The Business Constituency, the Registries Stakeholder Group, and the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group	Protesting the staff "imposition" of an Accountability Plan as posted, without public comment or bottom-up process	Withdrawn	No recommendation	No action taken	It appears that either this request inspired a change in process, or was overtaken by events - an additional public comment period was announced shortly after the request was filed.
14-39: Despegar Online SRL, Radix FZC, Famous Four Media Limited, Fegistry, LLC, Donuts, Inc., Minds + Machines	Reconsideration of the staff response to a DIDP request regarding the .hotel CPE	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration
14-40: Dadotart, Inc.	Dadotart did not prevail in a Community Priority Evaluation for .art	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration
14-41: Afilias Limited, BRS Media Inc., and Tin Dale, LLC	Reconsideration of the European Broadcasting Union's succesful Community Priority Evaluation for .radio; and ICANN staff's response to a DIDP request concerning the same CPE	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration
14-42: Ministry of Industry, Trade, Investment and Digital Economy of the Kingdom of Morocco	Handling of Morocco's objection to the .tata domain application	No	No recommendation	No action taken	The reconsideration request was deemed moot - Morocco's other efforts for relief succeeded before the RR was considered by the BGC
14-43: City of Spa	ICANN decision to process applications for .spa as non-geographic name applications	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration
14-44: dotgay LLC	dotgay did not prevail in a Community Priority Evaluation for .gay	No	Approve reconsideration	No action taken	"Accepting the Request merely allows the appointment of new CPE evaluators (and potentially new core team members) to conduct a new evaluation and issue a new report that will supersede the existing CPE Panel’s Report." (see RR 15-21)
14-45: .music LLC	.music LLC did not prevail in a Community Priority Evaluation for .music	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration
14-46: Little Birch, LLC and Minds + Machines Group Limited	Reconsideration of Big Room, LLC's successful Community Priority Evaluation for .eco	No*	Deny	No action taken	No proper grounds for reconsideration

Country code top-level domain

Request For Comments

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Top-Level Domain

Nominating Committee

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

General Data Protection Regulation

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. Represents the full range of non-commercial entities of the Internet (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the At-Large Advisory Committee.

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Independent Review Process