Limited New gTLD Appeals Processes

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H
1	Process	Outcome That Might Warrant Challenge	Potential Affected Parties	Parties With Standing	Arbiter of Challenge	Likely Results of Successful Challenge	Who Bears Cost?	Notes

2	Background Screening	Failure - disqualification for application from program	- Applicant	- Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Reinstatement of application	Applicant
3		No issues found in background screening	- Applicant - Members of the contention set, if applicable	- Member(s) of the contention set, if applicable	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Disqualification from program	Member(s) of the contention set
4	String Similarity	Found to be similar to existing TLD, Reserved Names, 2-char IDNs against one-char (any) and 2-char (ASCII) - disqualification for application from program	- Applicant - Existing TLD Operator	- Applicant - Existing TLD Operator (No standing, but can file objection)	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Reinstatement of application	Applicant
5		Found to be similar to another applied-for TLD - inclusion in a contention set	- Applicant - Other applicants in contention set	- Applicant - Other applicants in contention set	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Removal of string from contention set	Filing Party
6		Found NOT to be similar to an existing TLD, Reserved Names, 2-Char IDNs....	- Applicant - Existing TLD Operator	- May not be appealed; Existing TLD can always file an objection	N/A	N/A	N/A
7		Found NOT to be similar to another applied-for-TLD	- Applicant - Other applicants in contention set	- May not be appealed; Other applicants can file objection	N/A	N/A	N/A
8	DNS Stability	Failure - disqualification for application from program	Applicant	Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Reinstatement of application	Applicant
9	Geographic Names	Designation as a geographic name as prescribed in the AGB	Applicant	Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Reversal of designation as a geographic name	Applicant
10		String is NOT designated as a geographic name as prescribed in the AGB	- Applicant - Relevant government or public authority	- Applicant - Relevant government or public authority	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Designation as a geographic string	Applicant/Relevant government or public authority
11		Definition of "relevant governments" disputed or other deficiency in documentation	- Applicant - Relevant government or public authority	- Applicant - Relevant government or public authority	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Change in definition or reversal of deficiency	Applicant/Relevant government or public authority
12	Technical & Operations	Failure - disqualification for application from program	Applicant	Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Reinstatement of application	Applicant
13	Financial	Failure - disqualification for application from program	Applicant	Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Reinstatement of application	Applicant
14	Registry Services	Assignment to extended review by RSTEP and RSTEP disapproves new service	Applicant	Applicant	New panel with different RSTEP panelists selected from the standing roster	New Service allowed to be included in New TLD Agreement	Applicant
15	Community Priority Evaluation	Applicant prevails in CPE - community-based applicant receives priority	Members of the contention set	Member(s) of the contention set	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Decision reversed - community-based application does NOT receive priority	Member(s) of the contention set
16		Applicant does not prevail in CPE - community-based applicant must resolve contention through other mechanisms	Applicant	Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Decision reversed - community-based application DOES receive priority	Applicant
17	Applicant Support	Applicant is determined to not meet the criteria - (in 2012, applicant had no recourse. Preliminarily, this WG is considering allowing the applicant to proceed at the normal application amount.)	Applicant	Applicant	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Decision reversed - applicant receives funding support	Applicant
18	RSP Pre-Evaluation	Failure - unable to be designated as pre-evaluated	RSP	RSP	Existing evaluator entity - different ultimate decision maker(s) within the entity	Successful designation as pre-evaluated	RSP
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100