3,197
edits
Changes
→Summary Table of Requests
| No action taken
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-1-atgron-inc-2015-01-15-en 15-1:] [[Atgron, Inc.]]
| Atgron's [[Registry Services Evaluation Policy]] request to offer third-level domains was rejected after public comment
| No
| Deny
| No action taken
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-2-big-room-inc-2015-02-23-en 15-2:] [[Big Room Inc.]]
| Requested reconsideration of ICANN's decision to launch a CEP with losing [[.eco]] applicants
| Withdrawn
| No recommendation
| No action taken
| See [[.eco]] article for history
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-3-brice-trail-llc-2015-03-12-en 15-3:] Brice Trail, LLC (Donuts)
| Brice Trail's [[.doctor]] TLD was restricted to offering registration to "legitimate medical practitioners"
| Withdrawn
| No recommendation
| No action taken
| Needs more research into context/background - the decision was overturned but not via this RR
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-4-schwarz-2015-03-19-en 15-4:] Schwarz Domains & Services GmbH & Co. KG
| Denial of request to change its application from .schwarzgroup to .kaufland]
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-5-atgron-inc-2015-03-23-en 15-5:] [[Atgron, Inc.]]
|
| Yes
| Deny
| No action taken
| "Reconsideration Request 15-5 is based on the exact same facts and circumstancesas Request 15-1, and makes no claims that the BGC failed to consider material information, orconsidered false or inaccurate material information, in deciding Request 15-1."
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-6-music-2015-04-21-en 15-6:] .Music LLC
| Requested reconsideration of ICANN's decision to: appove Dot Music Limited's application change request; and defer .Music LLC's change request until completion of the CPE process
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-7-booking-bv-travel-reservations-srl-2015-05-15-en 15-7:] Booking.com BV and Travel Reservations SRL
| Requested reconsideration of the Booking.com v. ICANN [[Independent Review Process|IRP]]
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#2.b Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-8-atgron-2015-05-20-en 15-8:] [[Atgron, Inc.]]
| Duplicate reconsideration request #3
| Yes
| No recommendation
| No action taken
| Summarily dismissed as vexatious & a waste of ICANN resources
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-9-atgron-2015-06-04-en 15-9] and [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-10-atgron-2015-06-22-en 15-10:] [[Atgron, Inc.]]
| Two more reconsideration requests, alleging "new information" that supplemented RR 15-1
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| Requests are not timely; even if they were, the "new information" still does not provide grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-11-motion-picture-domain-registry-2015-06-30-en 15-11:] Motion Picture Domain Registry Pty Ltd
| MPDR submitted a list of two-letter second level domains for approval for release - ICANN approved all except those that were objected to during public comment
| No
| Deny
| No action taken
| *Most objections were related to confusion with [[ccTLD]]s. <br /> *"ICANN’s decision to withhold all objected-to two-letter labels pending the development of this evaluation process does not violate any established policy or procedure, because ICANN adhered to the Process in evaluating the Authorization Request and no other procedure has been finalized yet. As such, Request 15-11 is denied. The BGC will, however, monitor the development of the criteria and process for evaluating objections to the release of certain two-letter labels, and urge staff to proceed as expeditiously as practicable."
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-12-e-flux-art-2015-07-10-en 15-12:] E-Flux.art, LLC
| Request to change its [[.art]] application from a community designation to a standard
| Withdrawn
| No recommendation
| No action taken
| The [[Applicant Guidebook]] specifically stated that applicants cannot change to or from a community designation once application is submitted.
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-13-commercial-connect-2015-07-14-en 15-13:] [[Commercial Connect LLC]]
| Commercial Connect failed its [[Community Priority Evaluation|CPE]] for [[.shop]]; requested reconsideration
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-09-28-en#2.a Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-14-foggy-sunset-2015-08-10-en 15-14:] Foggy Sunset, LLC (Donuts)
| Requesting reconsideration of Asia Spa & Wellness Promotion Council's successful [[Community Priority Evaluation|CPE]] for [[.spa]]
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-15-15-cis-2015-09-09-en 15-15:] [[Centre for Internet & Society]]
| Requested reconsideration of staff responses to two [[Document Information Disclosure Policy|DIDP]] requests: documents pertaining to ICANN's "efforts to implement [[NETmundial]] Principles" into its policies; and "raw data" for ICANN's income statements from 1999-2011
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| "There is no indication that: (i) ICANN staff violated established policy or procedure by determining that certain documents sought in the Second Financial Data DIDP Request were subject to DIDP Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure; or (ii) ICANN staff violated established policy or procedure by determining that certain documents sought in the Second NETmundial DIDP Request fell outside the scope of the DIDP."
|}
|}