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 249:
Line 266: − + Line 289:
Line 306: + + + + + + + Line 403:
Line 427: − + − + Line 472:
Line 496: − + Line 480:
Line 504: − + Line 493:
Line 517: − + Line 548:
Line 572: + + + + + + + Line 919:
Line 950: + + + + + + + + + Line 1,105:
Line 1,145: − | In process − + +
→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]]
|-
|-
| [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/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|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>
| "…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]]
|-
|-
| [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 [https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-implosion-of-goproud-the-rights-most-notorious-pro-gay-group# 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
| 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 appealed 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
| [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-2019-01-27-en#2.h Denied by resolution]
| [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
| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reconsideration-16-13-merck-kgaa-request-2016-09-28-en 16-13:] Merck KGaA
| Staff inaction regarding the assignment of [[.hiphop]] to requester after a purchase transaction with [[Uniregistry]]
| Staff inaction regarding the assignment of [[.hiphop]] to requester after a purchase transaction with [[Uniregistry]]
| No
| No
|
|
| See [[.hiphop]] for more information
|
| 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
|}
|}