ICANNWiki

Reconsideration: Difference between revisions

← Older editNewer edit →
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
VisualWikitext
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
JP (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197 edits
Line 30: Line 30:
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 mw-collapsed" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | Early Reconsideration Requests, 1999-2000
|-
|-
! Reconsideration Request
! Reconsideration Request
Line 107: Line 109:
| 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 mw-collapsed" 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
Line 142: Line 150:
| 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 mw-collapsed" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | 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]]
Line 289: Line 303:
| [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 mw-collapsed" 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]]
Line 403: Line 424:
|-
|-
| [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
Line 472: Line 493:
| 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*
Line 480: Line 501:
|-
|-
| [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
Line 493: Line 514:
|  
|  
|-
|-
| [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
Line 548: Line 569:
| [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- ===
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" width=100%
|+ class="nowrap" | New gTLD Program: 2014-
|-
|-
| [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]]
Line 919: Line 945:
| [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 [[Document 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.
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="nowrap" | ICANN is born.
|-
|-
| [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
Retrieved from "https://staging.icannwiki.org/Reconsideration"