Changes

==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>  

===Early Days: 1999-2000===

===Early Days: 1999-2000===

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.

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 mw-collapsed" width=100%

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%

|+ class="nowrap" | Early Reconsideration Requests, 1999-2000

|+ class="nowrap" | Early Reconsideration Requests, 1999-2000

|-

|-

===2000: New TLD Expansion Pilot===

===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.

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 mw-collapsed" width=100%

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%

|+ class="nowrap" | 2000 New TLD Pilot & Sponsored TLDs

|+ class="nowrap" | 2000 New TLD Pilot & Sponsored TLDs

|-

|-

| "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*

| 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===

===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.

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 mw-collapsed" width=100%

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%

|+ class="nowrap" | The Decade of Varied Requests: 2001 - 2010

|+ class="nowrap" | The Decade of Varied Requests: 2001 - 2010

|-

|-

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.

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 mw-collapsed" width=100%

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%

|+ class="nowrap" | Applicant Guidebook, Policy Development, and Application Processing: 2010-2014

|+ class="nowrap" | Applicant Guidebook, Policy Development, and Application Processing: 2010-2014

|-

|-

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.

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 mw-collapsed" width=100%

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%

|+ class="nowrap" | New gTLD Program: 2014-2016

|+ class="nowrap" | New gTLD Program: 2014-2016

|-

|-

===Reconsideration Stalwarts & Back to Business: 2016-Present===

===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 Process]] requests surrounding the disposition of their various applications. The reconsideration process returned to a mixture of consumer complaints and objections to policy or process.

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.

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 mw-collapsed" width=100%

{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" width=100%

|+ class="nowrap" | Lingering New gTLD Program Issues and Other Matters: 2016-Present

|+ class="nowrap" | Lingering New gTLD Program Issues and Other Matters: 2016-Present

|-

|-