14,927
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: − + + + Line 19:
Line 21: − + Line 30:
Line 32: − + − + − + − + + + Line 107:
Line 111: + + + + + + Line 136:
Line 146: − + Line 142:
Line 152: + + + + + + + Line 246:
Line 263: − + − + Line 263:
Line 280: − + Line 269:
Line 286: − + Line 276:
Line 293: − + − + − + − + − + − + − + + + + + + + + − + − + Line 297:
Line 321: − + Line 304:
Line 328: − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + Line 333:
Line 357: − + Line 340:
Line 364: − + Line 360:
Line 384: − + Line 367:
Line 391: − + − + − + − + − + − + Line 389:
Line 413: − + − + − + Line 402:
Line 426: − + − + − + − + Line 424:
Line 448: − + Line 431:
Line 455: − + Line 437:
Line 461: − + − + Line 444:
Line 468: − + − + Line 452:
Line 476: − + Line 459:
Line 483: − + Line 466:
Line 490: − + Line 472:
Line 496: − + Line 480:
Line 504: − + Line 493:
Line 517: − + Line 507:
Line 531: − + − + Line 548:
Line 572: + + + + + + + Line 870:
Line 901: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→2000: New TLD Expansion Pilot
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<ref name="annexd">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD Annex D to the ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref>; and if the matter relates to the exercise of the powers and rights of the EC as defined by the Bylaws.<ref>Article 4.2(b), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> Annex D outlines the process through which "Decisional Participants" may petition the EC to submit a Community Reconsideration Request.<ref name="annexd" />
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<ref name="annexd">[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD Annex D to the ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref>; and if the matter relates to the exercise of the powers and rights of the EC as defined by the Bylaws.<ref>Article 4.2(b), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> Annex D outlines the process through which "Decisional Participants" may petition the EC to submit a Community Reconsideration Request.<ref name="annexd" />
===Applicability to Objections to Applications, New gTLD Program===
===Applicability to Processing of Applications in the 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/terms-04jun12-en.pdf New gTLD Program Applicant Guidebook - Module 6: Terms and Conditions] (PDF)</ref> In other words, the substance of an expert determination could not be challenged, but a failure in procedural requirements could be.
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/terms-04jun12-en.pdf New gTLD Program Applicant Guidebook - Module 6: Terms and Conditions] (PDF)</ref> In other words, the substance of an expert determination could not be challenged, but a failure in procedural requirements could be.
The vast majority of the reconsideration requests related to third party, staff, and Board decisions related to TLD applications were denied, in part or in whole, because they attempted to request reconsideration of substantive matters, rather than procedural issues.
===Excluded from Reconsideration===
===Excluded from Reconsideration===
==Process==
==Process==
Under the current Bylaws, the [[ICANN Board|Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee]] (BAMC) reviews and considers the requests.<ref>Articles 4.2(e) and (k), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 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>Article 4.2(k), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 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 noting Commercial Connect's abuse of "all of ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms," the BAMC nonetheless provides an analysis on the sufficiency of the request.</ref>
Under the current Bylaws, the [[Board Committees|Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee]] (BAMC) reviews and considers the requests.<ref>Articles 4.2(e) and (k), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 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>Article 4.2(k), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 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 noting 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 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.<ref>Article 4.2(l), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> In addition, the BAMC may request additional information from the requestor, third parties, ICANN staff, and anyone else it deems relevant to the inquiry.<ref>Articles 4.2(m)-(o), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref>
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.<ref>Article 4.2(l), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> In addition, the BAMC may request additional information from the requestor, third parties, ICANN staff, and anyone else it deems relevant to the inquiry.<ref>Articles 4.2(m)-(o), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref>
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.<ref>Article 4.2(s), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> Only actions by the Board are subject to urgent review.<ref>See [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop-request-2021-12-16-en Reconsideration Request 21-3], where the BAMC denied Dot Hip Hop LLC's request for urgent reconsideration of inaction by ICANN staff</ref>
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.<ref>Article 4.2(s), [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article4 ICANN Bylaws], as amended November 28, 2019</ref> Only actions by the Board are subject to urgent review.<ref>See [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop-request-2021-12-16-en Reconsideration Request 21-3], where the BAMC denied Dot Hip Hop LLC's request for urgent reconsideration of inaction by ICANN staff</ref>
==Summary Table of Requests==
==Summary Tables of Requests==
The following table presents the reconsideration requests submitted to ICANN, their subject matter, and their disposition.
The following tables present 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).
* "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 "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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/staff-response-to-atrt-wg4-01oct10-en.pdf ICANN Staff Responses to ATRT1 Team], October 1, 2010 (PDF)</ref>
* The requests are numbered by ICANN in order received by year. No requests were received in 2003, 2007, 2008, and 2009.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/staff-response-to-atrt-wg4-01oct10-en.pdf ICANN Staff Responses to ATRT1 Team], October 1, 2010 (PDF)</ref>
===Early Days: 1999-2000===
{| class="wikitable"
In the lead-up to ICANN's pilot expansion of the number of [[Top Level Domain|TLDs]], the reconsideration process was utilized for a variety of issues, from inclusion of specific constituencies in SOs to attempted appeals of UDRP decisions.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | Early Reconsideration Requests, 1999-2000
|-
|-
! Reconsideration Request
! Reconsideration Request
| Deny
| Deny
|
|
|}
===2000: New TLD Expansion Pilot===
ICANN's pilot program for expanding the root resulted in a number of applications for new TLDs, and a number of reconsideration requests regarding decisions about those applications.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | 2000 New TLD Pilot & Sponsored TLDs
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/00-6-2014-02-07-en 00-6:] A. J. L. de Breed
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/00-6-2014-02-07-en 00-6:] A. J. L. de Breed
| "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.>"
| "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.>"
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/01-3-2014-02-07-en 01-3:] [[Monsoon Assets Limited]] (BVI)]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/01-3-2014-02-07-en 01-3:] [[Monsoon Assets Limited]] (BVI)
| Request to reconsider non-selection of Monsoon's application for the New TLD pilot
| Request to reconsider non-selection of Monsoon's application for the New TLD pilot
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
| Reconsideration request was not timely submitted and did not substantiate its claims
| Reconsideration request was not timely submitted and did not substantiate its claims
|}
===Diverse and Sparse Requests: 2001-2010===
During most of the 2000s, the reconsideration mechanism was used for a variety of complaints about ICANN processes or policy-making. There were no reconsideration requests in 2003, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | The Decade of Varied Requests: 2001 - 2010
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/01-4-2014-02-07-en 01-4:] [[Verio]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/01-4-2014-02-07-en 01-4:] [[Verio]]
|
|
|
|
| Ombudsman advised the committee that this request was no different from a complaint to the Ombuds office. Deemed frivolous.
| [[Ombudsman]] advised the committee that this request was no different from a complaint to the Ombuds office. Deemed frivolous.
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/06-1-2014-02-07-en 06-1:] [[Network Solutions]], LLC, et. al.
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/06-1-2014-02-07-en 06-1:] [[Network Solutions]], LLC, et. al.
| Board approval of [[Verisign#Site Finder Service]] Settlement in February 2006
| Board approval of [[Verisign#Site Finder Service|Verisign]] Settlement in February 2006
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/06-3-2014-02-07-en 06-3:] [[Marilyn Cade]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/06-3-2014-02-07-en 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.
| Protesting ICANN [[Board Committees|Governance Committee]] 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*
| 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
| 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
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/06-4-2014-02-07-en 06-4:] ICM Registry
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/06-4-2014-02-07-en 06-4:] [[ICM Registry]]
| Board rejection of Registry Agreement with ICM for [[.xxx]]
| Board rejection of Registry Agreement with ICM for [[.xxx]]
| No
| No
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/10-1-2014-02-07-en 10-1:] Michael Palage
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/10-1-2014-02-07-en 10-1:] [[Michael Palage]]
| Late publication of board meeting minutes
| Late publication of board meeting minutes
| No
| 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.
| Posting was 10 hours late, so limited impact; but, recommend amendment of [[ICANN Bylaws]] requiring the posting of board resolutions within 2 days, and preliminary report within 7 days.
| [https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#14 Approved recommendation]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-25jun10-en.htm#14 Approved recommendation]
| Palage, in the public comments to the proposed Bylaws amendment, expressed [https://forum.icann.org/lists/reconsideration-request-10-1/msg00004.html disappointment]
| Palage, in the [[Public Comment]]s to the proposed Bylaws amendment, expressed [https://forum.icann.org/lists/reconsideration-request-10-1/msg00004.html disappointment]
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/10-2-2014-02-07-en 10-2:] [[.JOBS]] Charter Compliance Coalition
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/10-2-2014-02-07-en 10-2:] [[.jobs]] Charter Compliance Coalition
| Approval of amendments to [[.JOBS]] [[Registry Agreement]], permitting noncompanyname.jobs registrations & proposing a phased allocation of such names
| Approval of amendments to .JOBS [[Registry Agreement]], permitting noncompanyname.jobs registrations & proposing a phased allocation of such names
| No
| No
| Deny, but ICANN staff to closely monitor the rollout of these new names to ensure the registry complies with its charter
| Deny, but [[ICANN Organization|ICANN staff]] to closely monitor the rollout of these new names to ensure the registry complies with its charter
| [https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#8 Approved recommendation]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#8 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.""<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-09dec10-en.pdf BGC Recommendation on RR 10-2], December 9, 2010</ref>
| "…the [[BGC|Board Governance Committee]] is not at all clear that it has a full picture of how [[Employ Media]] intends to implement the Phased Allocation Process.""<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-09dec10-en.pdf BGC Recommendation on RR 10-2], December 9, 2010</ref>
|}
===Lead-up and Application Phase of the New gTLD Program: 2010-2014===
The vast majority of the reconsideration requests from October 2010 until April 2014 dealt with: policy formation, [[Applicant Guidebook]] development, and other issues related to the launch of [[New gTLD Program]]; and after the launch, threshold decisions regarding applications for TLD strings.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | Applicant Guidebook, Policy Development, and Application Processing: 2010-2014
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/10-3-2014-02-07-en 10-3:] Michael Palage
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/10-3-2014-02-07-en 10-3:] [[Michael Palage]]
| Resolution approving description of High Security Top Level Domain program in the [[Applicant Guidebook]]
| Resolution approving description of [[HSTLD|High-Security Top Level Domain]] program in the [[Applicant Guidebook]]
| No*
| 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.""<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-04dec10-en.pdf BGC Recommendation on RR 10-3], December 4, 2010</ref>
| 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.""<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/bgc-recommendation-04dec10-en.pdf BGC Recommendation on RR 10-3], December 4, 2010</ref>
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/11-1-2014-02-07-en 11-1:] Michael Gende
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/11-1-2014-02-07-en 11-1:] [[Michael Gende]]
| Staff failure to assist Mr. Gende in obtaining zetamusic.com
| Staff failure to assist Mr. Gende in obtaining zetamusic.com
| No*
| No*
| Failure to state a claim related to ICANN's mission.
| Failure to state a claim related to ICANN's mission.
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/12-1-2014-02-07-en 12-1:] International Olympic Committee
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/12-1-2014-02-07-en 12-1:] [[International Olympic Committee]]
| New gTLD Committee's inaction re: advice from [[GNSO]] suggesting additional protections for Red Cross, IOC
| New gTLD Committee's inaction re: advice from [[GNSO]] suggesting [[Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy|additional protections for Red Cross, IOC]]
| No
| No
| Deny; but, suggest that the New gTLD committee assess whether the time is now ripe to act on GNSO advice
| Deny; but, suggest that the [[Board Committees|New gTLD Committee]] assess whether the time is now ripe to act on GNSO advice
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2012-06-27-en New gTLD Committee resolved to review new information since original decision]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2012-06-27-en New gTLD Committee resolved to review new information since original decision]
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/12-2-2014-02-07-en 12-2:] GNSO [[Intellectual Property Constituency]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/12-2-2014-02-07-en 12-2:] [[GNSO]] [[Intellectual Property Constituency]]
| Board Approval of the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) request of the registry operator for .CAT, Fundació PuntCAT
| Board Approval of the Registry Services Evaluation Process ([[RSEP]]) request of the registry operator for [[.cat]], [[PuntCAT|Fundació PuntCAT]]
| No
| No
| Deny; but amend a preliminary "wheras" clause from the resolution to avoid confusion regarding scope of the amendment
| Deny; but amend a preliminary "whereas" clause from the resolution to avoid confusion regarding the 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
| [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
| Request for amendment was related to [[GDPR]]/[[WHOIS]] issues for a Spanish registry
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-1-2014-02-07-en 13-1:] [[Ummah Digital, Ltd.]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-1-2014-02-07-en 13-1:] [[Ummah Digital, Ltd.]]
| Staff rejection of Ummah's application based on Support Applicant Review Panel's Findings under the [[New gTLD Round]]
| Staff rejection of [[.ummah|Ummah]]'s application based on [https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support Support Applicant Review Panel]'s Findings under the [[New gTLD Round]]
| No
| No
| Deny; refer to [[SUBPRO]] for possible lessons learned
| Deny; refer to [[SUBPRO]] for possible lessons learned
| Denied and referred to SUBPRO
| 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."
| "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."
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-2-2014-02-07-en 13-2:] [[Nameshop]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-2-2014-02-07-en 13-2:] [[Nameshop]]
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-3-2014-02-12-en 13-3:] [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-3-2014-02-12-en 13-3:] [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]]
| Introduction of "prior offender" URLs in the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]]
| Introduction of "prior offender" [[URL]]s in the [[Trademark Clearinghouse]]
| No
| No
| Deny; but, the request raises important points wrt "policy" versus "implementation", and expanding the mechanisms of community consultation
| Deny; but, the request raises important points wrt "policy" versus "implementation", and expanding the mechanisms of community consultation
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-4-2014-02-12-en 13-4:] [[DotConnectAfrica Trust]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-4-2014-02-12-en 13-4:] [[DotConnectAfrica Trust]]
| Rejection of DCA Trust's [[.africa]] application in the [[New gTLD Program]]
| Rejection of [[DotConnectAfrica|DCA]] Trust's [[.africa]] application in the [[New gTLD Program]]
| No
| No
| Deny
| Deny
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-7-2014-02-13-en 13-7:] Dish DBS Corp.
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-7-2014-02-13-en 13-7:] [[Dish DBS Corporation|Dish DBS Corp]]
| Dish attempted to register [[.direct]] and DirectTV's objection was upheld
| Dish attempted to register [[.direct]] and DirectTV's objection was upheld
| No
| No
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-8-2014-02-13-en 13-8:] Merck KGaA
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-8-2014-02-13-en 13-8:] [[Merck KGaA]]
| New gTLD Committee's recommendation that third party neutrals consider extenuating circumstances regarding missed objection deadlines
| New gTLD Committee's recommendation that third party neutrals consider extenuating circumstances regarding missed objection deadlines
| No
| No
| Deny
| Deny
| 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
| Merck KGaA, a German company had applied for [[.merck]] and .emerck. The American [[[[Merck & Co. Inc.|Merck & Co.]]'s objections to the two applications were ten and eleven minutes late, respectively
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-9-2014-02-13-en 13-9:] Amazon EU S.a.r.l.
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-9-2014-02-13-en 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]]
| 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
| No
| Deny
| Deny
| 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.
| 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 Objection|string confusion cases]], and that neither string proceed to contracting until the [[Board Committees|NGPC]] had an opportunity to review.
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-10-2014-02-13-en 13-10:] [[Commercial Connect LLC]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-10-2014-02-13-en 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
| 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
| No
| Deny
| Deny
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-11-2014-02-13-en 13-11:] [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-11-2014-02-13-en 13-11:] [[Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group]]
| Asking the board to review the sufficiency of the staff reponse to the NCSG's [[Documentary Information Disclosure Policy|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.
| Asking the board to review the sufficiency of the staff response to the NCSG's [[Documentary Information Disclosure Policy|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*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
| No action
| 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.
| 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 "proper grounds for reconsideration" and was denied without further consideration. This is similar to the current "dismissal" powers of the [[Board Committees|BAMC]].
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-12-2014-02-13-en 13-12:] Tencent Holdings Limited
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-12-2014-02-13-en 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.
| Tencent applied for 微博 and [[.Weibo]]. Sina, the mark holder for 微博, objected to both applications and the objections were sustained.
| No
| No
| Deny
| Deny
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-13-2014-02-13-en 13-13:] Christopher Barron
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-13-2014-02-13-en 13-13:] [[Christopher Barron]]
| Rejection of GoPROUD's objection to dotgay LLC's application for [[.gay]]
| Rejection of GOProud's objection to [[Dotgay LLC]]'s application for [[.gay]]
| No
| No
| Deny
| Deny
| 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.
| The BGC's recommendation was moot by the time the NGPC considered it, as GOProud had dissolved and reformed,<ref>[https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-implosion-of-goproud-the-rights-most-notorious-pro-gay-group Daily Beast - Inside the Implosion of GOProud], June 6, 2014</ref> and Christopher Barron was not associated with the new entity, nor could he otherwise be contacted.
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-14-2014-02-13-en 13-14:] DERCars, LLC
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-14-2014-02-13-en 13-14:] DERCars, LLC
| Google submitted objections to the three applications for [[.cars]], but only prevailed as it related to DERCars' application.
| [[Google]] submitted objections to the three applications for [[.cars]], but only prevailed as it related to DERCars' application.
| No
| No
| No action - request was withdrawn
| No action - request was withdrawn
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-16-2014-02-13-en 13-16:] dot Sport Limited
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-16-2014-02-13-en 13-16:] dot Sport Limited
| SportAccord's objection to dot Sports' application for [[.sport]] was sustained
| [[SportAccord]]'s objection to dot Sports' application for [[.sport]] was sustained
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-17-2014-02-13-en 13-17:] GCCIX, W.L.L.
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-17-2014-02-13-en 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
| 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
| No
| Deny
| Deny
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-18-2014-02-13-en 13-18:] ILGA
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-18-2014-02-13-en 13-18:] [[ILGA]]
| ILGA's community objection to Afilias' application for [[.lgbt]] was rejected
| ILGA's community objection to [[Afilias]]' application for [[.lgbt]] was rejected
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
| Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
| Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-19-2014-02-13-en 13-19:] HOTREC
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-19-2014-02-13-en 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.
| 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
| No
| Deny
| Deny
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-20-2014-02-13-en 13-20:] DotSecure, Inc.
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-20-2014-02-13-en 13-20:] DotSecure, Inc.
| DotSecure applied for [[.bank]]. The Int'l Banking Federation objected and the objection was sustained
| [[Radix|DotSecure]] applied for [[.bank]]. The Int'l Banking Federation objected and the objection was sustained
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-21-2014-02-14-en 13-21:] European Lotteries
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-21-2014-02-14-en 13-21:] European Lotteries
| Requester objected to Afilias' application for [[.lotto]], and lost
| Requester objected to [[Afilias]]'s application for [[.lotto]], and lost
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-22-2014-02-14-en 12-22:] [[DotMusic]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-22-2014-02-14-en 12-22:] [[DotMusic]]
| DotMusic's community objection to Amazon's [[.music]] application did not prevail
| DotMusic's community objection to [[Amazon]]'s [[.music]] application did not prevail
| No*
| No*
| Deny
| Deny
| Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
| Denied without recommendation to the NGPC
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-23-2014-02-14-en 13-23:] Ruby Pike, LLC
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/13-23-2014-02-14-en 13-23:] Ruby Pike, LLC (Donuts)
| The [[Independent Objector]] prevailed in a "limited public interest" objection to Ruby Pike's application for [[.hospital]]
| The [[Independent Objector]] prevailed in a "limited public interest" objection to Ruby Pike's application for [[.hospital]]
| No*
| No*
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-1-2014-02-14-en 14-1:] [[Medistry LLC]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-1-2014-02-14-en 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.
| The [[Independent Objector]] submitted an objection to Medistry's application for [[.med]]. Medistry appealed on the grounds that the IO cannot object unless there is at least one public comment that opposes the application.
| No
| No
| Reversed; Medistry's application allowed to proceed
| Reversed; Medistry's application allowed to proceed
|
|
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-3-2014-01-30-en 14-3:] Corn Lake, LLC
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-3-2014-01-30-en 14-3:] Corn Lake, LLC (Donuts)
| The [[Independent Objector]] submitted an objection to Corn Lake's application for [[.charity]] and succeeded
| The [[Independent Objector]] submitted an objection to Corn Lake's application for [[.charity]] and succeeded
| No
| No
| The panel's decision took the applicant's [[Public Interest Commitments]] into account
| The panel's decision took the applicant's [[Public Interest Commitments]] into account
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-5-2014-02-14-en 14-5:] Vistaprint Limited
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-5-2014-02-14-en 14-5:] [[.vistaprint|Vistaprint]] Limited
| Web.com Group successfully objected to Vistaprint's [[.webs]] application on string confusion grounds
| [[Web.com]] Group successfully objected to Vistaprint's [[.webs]] application on string confusion grounds
| No
| No
| Deny
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en#2.c Denied by resolution of the board]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en#2.c Denied by resolution of the board]
|
|
|}
===New gTLD Program: 2014-2016 ===
From April 2014 to the end of 2016, the reconsideration process was used extensively by applicants to the [[New gTLD Program]]. The [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process was a frequent bone of contention, as well as various string contention sets.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | New gTLD Program: 2014-2016
|-
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-11-2014-04-03-en 14-11:] [[Commercial Connect LLC]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-11-2014-04-03-en 14-11:] [[Commercial Connect LLC]]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.d Denied by resolution]
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.d Denied by resolution]
|
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-6-dotkids-request-2016-05-06-en 16-6:] DotKids Foundation
| DotKids did not prevail in its [[CPE]] for [[.kids]]
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-7-dotmusic-request-2016-06-08-en 16-7:] [[DotMusic Limited]]
| Requesting reconsideration of staff response to DotMusic's [[Document Information Disclosure Process|DIDP]] request regarding the determination of DotMusic's [[Community Priority Evaluation]] of [[.music]]
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-8-cpa-australia-request-2016-07-18-en 16-8:] CPA Australia Ltd.
| CPA Australia did not prevail in its [[Community Priority Evaluation]] for [[.cpa]]
| No
| Deny
| No action taken
| RR was withdrawn after the BAMC's recommendation was published
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-9-ruby-glen-radix-request-2016-07-18-en 16-9:] Ruby Glen, LLC and Radix FZC
| Urgent reconsideration request regarding ICANN staff's refusal to halt the [[.web]] [[Auctions of Last Resort|auction]] based on leadership changes at another applicant & auction participant
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-10-rysg-request-2016-08-11-en 16-10:] [[Registries Stakeholder Group]]
| ICANN policy implementation guidance to registries that "improperly conflated" a Consistent Labeling and Display (CL&D) Policy with [[RDAP]]
| Withdrawn
| No recommendation
| No action taken
| Withdrawn by RySG prior to any action
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-11-trs-et-al-request-2016-08-25-en 16-11:] Travel Reservations SRL; Spring McCook, LLC; Minds + Machines Group Limited; Famous Four Media Limited; dot Hotel Limited; Radix FCZ; dot Hotel Inc.; and Fegistry, LLC
| Board acceptance of Hotel Top-Level Domain S.a.r.l.'s successful [[Community Priority Evaluation]] for [[.hotel]] and instruction to staff to move forward was discriminatory to requesters (who were the other applicants), and invalid for other reasons
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-01-27-en#2.f Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-12-merck-kgaa-request-2016-08-25-en 16-12]: Merck KGaA
| Requester did not prevail in its [[Community Priority Evaluation]] for [[.merck]]
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-01-27-en#2.h Denied by resolution]
|
|}
===Reconsideration Stalwarts & Back to Business: 2016-Present===
By late 2016, all but a few applicants to the [[New gTLD Program]] had acknowledged defeat or were engaged in other processes to resolve their disputes with ICANN and other applicants. Those still persisting with reconsideration requests were increasingly focused on staff responses to [[Documentary Information Disclosure Policy]] requests surrounding the disposition of their various applications. The reconsideration process returned to a mixture of consumer complaints and objections to policy or process.
In 2020 and 2021, the BAMC became more comfortable with summary dismissal of requests that were either outside the scope of the Bylaws, or failed to state a claim.
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | Lingering New gTLD Program Issues and Other Matters: 2016-Present
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-13-merck-kgaa-request-2016-09-28-en 16-13:] Merck KGaA
| Merck's application for merck.pharmacy during [[.pharmacy]]'s [[sunrise period]] was rejected (the name was given to the U.S.-based Merck & Co.)
| No*
| Deny
| No action taken
| No proper grounds for reconsideration. "In sum, ICANN correctly determined that the Registry had complied with Spec 11. As ICANN informed the Requester, registry operators may set their own criteria for resolving disputes in the circumstance where two legitimate trademark holders apply for the same second level domain."
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-14-lee-request-2016-12-16-en 16-14:] Fraser Lee
| [[Contractual Compliance]] closed Lee's complaint regarding ripoffreport.com, finding no violation of the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]]
| Yes
| Deny
| No action taken
| Summarily denied for failure to state a claim
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-1-smith-request-2017-03-16-en 17-1:] Russ Smith
| Contractual Compliance closed Smith's two WHOIS SLA complaints concerning historical ownership data for his domain directorschoice.com
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-06-24-en#2.d Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-2-dotmusic-request-2017-06-19-en 17-2:] [[DotMusic Limited]]
| Staff response to DotMusic's [[Document Information Disclosure Process|DIDP]] request regarding ICANN's [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-09-23-en#2.a Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-3-dotgay-request-2017-07-03-en 17-3:] dotgay LLC
| Staff response to dotgay's [[Document Information Disclosure Process|DIDP]] request regarding ICANN's [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-09-23-en#2.b Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-4-dotmusic-dotgay-request-2017-07-28-en 17-4:] [[DotMusic Limited]] and dotgay LLC
| Staff response to requesters' joint [[Document Information Disclosure Process|DIDP]] request regarding ICANN's [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-10-29-en#1.a Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-17-5-dotkids-request-2017-12-06-en 17-5:] DotKids Foundation
| Objecting to ICANN Staff taking DotKids' [[Community Priority Evaluation]] for [[.kids]] off hold prior to the conclusion of the CPE process review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-05-13-en#2.c Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-1-dotmusic-request-2018-03-19-en 18-1:] DotMusic Limited
| Another [[DIDP]] request (see 17-2, 17-4) related to ICANN's [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-07-18-en#2.b Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-2-dotgay-request-2018-03-19-en 18-2:] dotgay LLC
| Another [[DIDP]] request (see 17-3, 17-4) related to ICANN's [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-07-18-en#2.c Denied by Resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-3-astutium-request-2018-03-30-en 18-3:] Astutium Ltd
| Termination of Astutium's [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]]
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-07-18-en#2.d Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-4-dotgay-request-2018-04-17-en 18-4:] dotgay LLC
| Board resolutions accepting the final report of the [[CPE]] process review and concluding the review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-07-18-en#2.e Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-5-dotmusic-request-2018-04-17-en 18-5:] [[DotMusic Limited]]
| Board resolutions accepting the final report of the [[CPE]] process review and concluding the review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-07-18-en#2.f Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-6-trs-et-al-request-2018-04-17-en 18-6:] Travel Reservations SRL; Minds + Machines Group Limited; Radix FZC; dot Hotel Inc.; Fegistry LLC
| Board resolutions accepting the final report of the [[CPE]] process review and concluding the review
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-07-18-en#2.g Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-7-afilias-no3-request-2018-04-27-en 18-7:] [[Afilias]] Domains No. 3 Limited
| Staff response to requester's [[Document Information Disclosure Process|DIDP]] request regarding the resolution of the [[.web]] contention set
| Yes
| Deny
| No action taken
| Summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-8-afilias-no3-request-2018-06-29-en 18-8:] [[Afilias]] Domains No. 3 Ltd
| Staff response to requester's second [[Document Information Disclosure Process|DIDP]] request regarding the resolution of the [[.web]] contention set
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2018-11-06-en#2.a Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-9-dotkids-request-2018-09-21-en 18-9:] DotKids Foundation
| Staff response to DotKid's request for financial support to engage in the [[.kids]] string contention process
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-01-27-en#2.g Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-18-10-acto-request-2018-11-29-en 18-10:] The Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization
| Board decision to remove the "Will not proceed" label and instruct staff to process applications for [[.amazon]]
| No
| Deny; however, notes that close coordination is required (see Notes)
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-01-16-en#2.a Denied by resolution]
| On the recommendation of the BAMC, the Board approved two additional resolutions:<br />Resolved (2019.01.16.03), the Board hereby reiterates that Resolution 2018.10.25.18 was taken with the clear intention to grant the President and CEO the authority to progress the facilitation process between the ACTO member states and the Amazon corporation with the goal of helping the involved parties reach a mutually agreed solution, but in the event they are unable to do so, the Board will make a decision at ICANN 64 on the next steps regarding the potential delegation of .AMAZON and related top-level domains.<br /> Resolved (2019.01.16.04), the Board encourages a high level of communication between the President and CEO and the relevant stakeholders, including the representatives of the Amazonian countries and the Amazon corporation, between now and ICANN 64, and directs the President and CEO to provide the Board with updates on the facilitation process in anticipation of revisiting the status of the .AMAZON applications at its meeting at ICANN64.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-01-16-en#2.a Resolution of the Board], January 16, 2019</ref>
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-19-1-colombian-request-2019-06-18-en - 19-1:] Colombian Government
| Board's decisions to remove the "Will Not Proceed" label from [[.amazon]] applications and instruct staff to move forward with processing
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-09-08-en#2.b Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-19-2-namecheap-request-2019-07-22-en 19-2:] [[Namecheap, Inc.]]
| Board's renewal of the [[.info]] and [[.org]] [[Registry Agreements]] with [[Afilias]] and [[Public Interest Registry]], respectively, specifically as the effect of those renewals "eliminated 'the historic price caps' on registration fees" for the two domains.
| No
| No recommendation (see Notes)
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-11-21-en#1.a Denied by resolution]
| The majority of the members of the BAMC recused themselves from voting on RR 19-2 because of potential or perceived conflicts, or out of an abundance of caution regarding the appearance of impropriety.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-11-03-en#1.a Resolution of the Board], re: Proposed Determination of Reconsideration Request 19-2, November 3, 2019</ref>
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-19-3-electronic-frontier-request-2019-08-01-en 19-3:] [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]
| Board's renewal of [[.org]] [[Registry Agreement]] with [[Public Interest Registry]], and specifically the inclusion of [[Uniform Rapid Suspension]] procedures in the amended RA.
| No
| No recommendation (see Notes)
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-12-12-en#1.b Denied by resolution]
| As with RR 19-2, the majority of the BAMC recused themselves from voting on this decision.
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-19-4-merck-kgaa-request-2019-10-15-en 19-4:] Merck KGaA and Merck Registry Holdings, Inc.
| ICANN's denial of a second postponement of the [[Auctions of Last Resort|auction]] for [[.merck]]
| No
| Deny, with provisos
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-01-26-en#2.d Denied], incorporating the BAMC's recommendations & provisos
| The BAMC noted that, between the first postponement, the processing of RR 19-4, and the subseqent delay before board action, the delay would have lasted nearly the amount of time originally requested by the parties.<br /> "If the Requestors jointly declare they have made progress since filing Request 19-4 and that they are very close to private resolution, the BAMC recommends that the Board ask ICANN org to consider providing the Requesters with some form of discretionary relief that could allow them to finalize a settlement."
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-20-1-namecheap-request-2020-01-09-en 20-1:] [[Namecheap, Inc.]]
| ICANN's alleged lack of transparency and failure to follow established procedure in considering [[Public Interest Registry]]'s change of control request
| No
| Deny
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-05-20-en#2 Denied by resolution]
|
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-20-2-rose-request-2020-06-19-en 20-2:] Emily Rose Trust
| Requesting reconsideration of a [[UDRP]] decision
| Yes
| Deny
|
| Summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-20-3-silver-marketing-request-2020-11-18-en 20-3:] Silver A Marketing
| Domain renewal issues with GoDaddy
| Yes
| Deny
|
| Summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-1-dot-hotel-et-al-request-2021-02-09-en 21-1:] Dot Hotel Limited and Domain Venture Partners PCC Limited
| Approval of [[Afilias]]' change of control request, pertaining to its merger with [[Donuts]]
| Yes
| Deny
|
| Summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-2-gupta-request-2021-06-10-en 21-2:] Pooja Gupta
| Requesting reconsideration of a registration issue with [[Net4.in]]
| Yes
| Deny
|
| Summarily dismissed for failure to state a claim
|-
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-21-3-dot-hip-hop-request-2021-12-16-en 21-3:] Dot Hip Hop, LLC
| Staff inaction regarding the assignment of [[.hiphop]] to requester after a purchase transaction with [[Uniregistry]]
| No
|
|
| Withdrawn by Dot Hip Hop by letter on January 13.<ref>[https://www.jjnsolutions.com/post/dot-hip-hop-withdraws-icann-reconsideration-request-and-corrects-the-record Jeff Neumann letter to ICANN], January 13, 2022</ref> See [[.hiphop]] for more information
|}
|}