Reconsideration: Difference between revisions

|-

| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/01-6-2014-02-07-en 01-6:] [[Russ Smith]]

| No

| Forward suggestions to UDRP Providers

| [https://features.icann.org/2002-01-21-reconsideration-requests Approved the committee's suggestion]

|-

| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/01-7-2014-02-07-en 01-7:] [[Edward Hasbrouck]]

|-

| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/02-4-2014-02-07-en 02-4:] [[Ethan Katsch]]

| No

| Deny

|-

| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/04-3-2014-02-07-en 04-3:] [[Network Solutions]]

| No

| No recommendation

| Ombudsman advised the committee that this request was no different from a complaint to the Ombuds office. Deemed frivolous.

|-

| No*

| Deny

| Deny

|-

| No*

| Deny

| "The Committee concludes that there are no grounds to proceed, as each of the grounds is either: (i) not an appropriate subject for reconsideration; (ii) already considered by the Board, or (iii) could have been brought to the Board's attention prior to the 28 February 2006 approval."

|-

| No*

| Deny

| Deny

|-

| No

| No recommendation - [https://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/withdrawal-of-request-06-4-29oct06.htm Request Withdrawn by ICM], October 2006

|  

|-

| Late publication of board meeting minutes

| No

| Palage, in the public comments to the proposed Bylaws amendment, expressed [https://forum.icann.org/lists/reconsideration-request-10-1/msg00004.html disappointment]

|-

| No

| Deny, but 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]

|-

| No*

| 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>

|-

| Staff failure to assist Mr. Gende in obtaining zetamusic.com

| No*

| Failure to state a claim related to ICANN's mission.

|-

| No

| Deny; but, suggest that the New gTLD committee assess whether the time is now ripe to act on GNSO advice

|  

|-

| Board Approval of the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) request of the registry operator for .CAT, Fundació PuntCAT

| No

| 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.

|-

| 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

| It is unclear what, if any, work was done on this RR. In February 2014, DERCars became one of two applicants granted the right to appeal the inconsistent ruling.

|-

| Staff failure to invite Commercial Connect to begin the [[CPE]] process for [[.shop]]

| No*

|  

|-

| Commercial Connect's [[.shop]] application was placed "On Hold" pending multiple Accountability Mechanism proceedings

| No*

|-

| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/14-12-2014-04-07-en 14-2:] Tennis Australia

| No*

| Deny