Reconsideration: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
(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.<ref>Section 4.2(c), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 Article 4, ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref></blockquote> | (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.<ref>Section 4.2(c), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 Article 4, ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref></blockquote> | ||
===Applicability to String Delegations, 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.<ref>[https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb New gTLD Program - Applicant Guidebook]</ref> 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: | 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 country code top-level domain ("ccTLD") delegations and re-delegations; | ||
| Line 13: | Line 17: | ||
==Process== | ==Process== | ||
Under the current Bylaws, the [[ICANN Board|Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee]] (BAMC) reviews and considers the requests.<ref>Section 4.2(e) and (k), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 Article 4, ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> 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).<ref>see, e.g., the [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2012-02-25-en#IV Accountability Mechanisms] of the Bylaws in effect as amended in July 2014</ref> 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.<ref>Section 4.2(k), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 Article 4, ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> Dismissal on the sole basis that the request is frivolous is rare.<ref>See, e.g., [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-2-commercial-connect-request-2016-02-10-en Request 16.2 - Commercial Connect LLC], February 25, 2016, where despite identifying Commercial Connect's abuse of "all of ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms," the BAMC nonetheless provides an analysis on the sufficiency of the request.</ref> | |||
If the reconsideration | If the reconsideration request passes through the initial review, the BAMC refers the matter to the [[ICANN Ombudsman]] for investigation in coordination with the BAMC.<ref>Section 4.2(l), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 Article 4, ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 23:30, 3 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.
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.[1]
Applicability to String Delegations, 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.[2] 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.[3]
Process[edit | edit source]
Under the current Bylaws, the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) reviews and considers the requests.[4] 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).[5] 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.[6] Dismissal on the sole basis that the request is frivolous is rare.[7]
If the reconsideration request passes through the initial review, the BAMC refers the matter to the ICANN Ombudsman for investigation in coordination with the BAMC.[8]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ Section 4.2(c), Article 4, ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ New gTLD Program - Applicant Guidebook
- ↑ Section 4.2(d), Article 4, ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ Section 4.2(e) and (k), Article 4, ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ see, e.g., the Accountability Mechanisms of the Bylaws in effect as amended in July 2014
- ↑ Section 4.2(k), Article 4, ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
- ↑ See, e.g., Request 16.2 - Commercial Connect LLC, February 25, 2016, where despite identifying Commercial Connect's abuse of "all of ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms," the BAMC nonetheless provides an analysis on the sufficiency of the request.
- ↑ Section 4.2(l), Article 4, ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019