Jump to content

Reconsideration

From ICANNWiki

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.
  • The requests are numbered by ICANN in order received by year. No requests were received in 2003, 2007, 2008, and 2009.[17]
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
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 International00-16 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: EthanKatsch Dissolution of the Independent Review nominating Committee No Deny Deny
02-5: Dotster, Inc. Board resolution modifying agreement with Verisign to allow "Wish List Service" No Deny Deny
02-6: VeriSign, Inc. Board resolution 02-100 No Modify Condition C to better meet the needs of consumers; no other action Approved recommendation

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ ICANN.org - Reconsideration
  2. ↑ Article 4.2(c), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Annex D to the ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  4. ↑ Article 4.2(b), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  5. ↑ New gTLD Program - Applicant Guidebook
  6. ↑ Article 4.2(d), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  7. ↑ Articles 4.2(e) and (k), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  8. ↑ see, e.g., the Accountability Mechanisms of the Bylaws in effect as amended in July 2014
  9. ↑ Article 4.2(k), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ Article 4.2(l), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  12. ↑ Articles 4.2(m)-(o), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  13. ↑ Article 4.2(p), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  14. ↑ Article 4.2(r), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  15. ↑ Article 4.2(s), ICANN Bylaws, as amended November 28, 2019
  16. ↑ See Reconsideration Request 21-3, where the BAMC denied Dot Hip Hop LLC's request for urgent reconsideration of inaction by ICANN staff
  17. ↑ ICANN Staff Responses to ATRT1 Team, October 1, 2010 (PDF)

Deprecated. Domain Name Supporting Organization. Predecessor of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which advised the Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System (ICANN Bylaws).

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/index.php?title=Reconsideration&oldid=1341864"