| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | AA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Requester | Request for Reconsideration | Grounds for Reconsideration | Date of Request | Date of Response | Reconsideration Committe/BCG Response | Grounds for Response | Board Action/gTLD Committee Action if Any | Number of Days Committee Has Taken to Respond | ||||||||||||||||||
2 | Eric Brunner | provisional recognition of a group as the "Trademark, Intellectual Property and Anti- counterfeiting Interest" constituency, envisioned in Article VI-B(3)(b)(7) of the ICANN Bylaws. The request was to stay this action. complains of ICANN's decision not to recognize a distinct DNSO constituency for "indigenous intellectual property" interests. The request raises questions about the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)'s membership criteria and their application; the openness and transparency of its procedures; the process by which the IPC was recognized; and whether any bylaws "or other guidelines" were violated by the parties involved | non-recognition as the "Trademark, Intellectual Property and Anti-counterfeiting Interest" constituency, and non-membership within that constituency adversely affects indigenous intellectual property rights | 25/06/1999 | 22/05/2000 | Recommended that the request be denied | " there is no basis on which to alter or overturn IPC recognition by the Board. The IPC is open to new members; it has applied its membership criteria evenhandedly; it is reasonably open and transparent; and it was recognized on the basis of a general community consensus (which obviously did not include Messrs. Brunner and Gough, but was nevertheless an evident consensus).
... all current members of the IPC have been required to complete and submit applications for membership, something it appears Messrs. Brunner and Gough have elected not to do. ...Gough have been invited to apply for membership in the constituency. Through Mr. Metalitz, the IPC has stated publicly its commitment to treat any such applications fairly and impartially, consistent with its stated policies. As members of the IPC, Messrs. Brunner and Gough would be able to take part in its activities and deliberations on an equal basis with any other members, and to advocate for indigenous intellectual property interests within the IPC and the DNSO. The Reconsideration Committee sincerely hopes they will do so. In the meantime, the Committee sees no reason to revoke or alter the Board's recognition of the IPC." | None | 332 | Total denials: 118 Total Requests to which the responses are not yet on the site: 8 Total Requests to which ICANN has responded favourably/cases where the offending action itself has been remedied without any need for ICANN intervention: 12 Total Requests which were withdrawn: 6 | |||||||||||||||||
3 | Gene Marsh | reconsideration of the request by the TLDA for representation on the ICANN Named Council in the gTLD Registry Constituency. | Not supplied, said had already submitted to the board in this regard | 02/08/1999 | 10/01/2000 | Recommended that the request be denied | request did not include the basic information required by the Reconsideration Policy, and Mr. Marsh did not respond to an August 5 staff request to provide that basic information. In addition, the Committee notes that the request was not timely, as it was received more than two months after the Board's decision on May 27, 1999, to provisionally recognize the gTLD constituency. | Denied | 161 | ||||||||||||||||||
4 | Mr. Perelman | Reconsideration of ICANN's action in refusing to let him register ?.com and ~.com | Company profits being affected | 04/09/1999 | 27/01/2000 | Recommended that the request be denied | Reconsideration Committee finds the domain names identified in Reconsideration Request 99-3 to be incompatible with the functional specifications contained in the Shared Registry System. Any proposed change in those specifications should be advanced through the appropriate Internet standards-development organization, in this case the IETF. | Denied | 145 | ||||||||||||||||||
5 | Karl Auerbach | the November 4, 1999 adoption of the DOC/ICANN/NSI Agreement and the November 10, 1999 signing of that Agreement. The requester states that The ICANN board refered neither the Agreement nor the policies created by the action of that Agreement to the DNSO. As such, the ICANN board has failed to adhere to Article VI Section 2(c) of its bylaws. Because the Board failed to follow the procedures that are clearly set forth in the By-Laws, the actions of the board are lacking both authority and power. As such ICANN's acceptance of the Agreement is not valid and the Agreement is not binding. | Affects his rights over the domain names registered by him | 17/11/1999 | 02/05/2000 | Recommended that the Request be denied | "Mr. Auerbach appears to be describing effects which did did not result from the Board’s November 4, 1999 action to authorize of the signing of the DOC/ICANN/NSI agreement...further that he is not a person affected by the Board Action in question...the Board was aware that it had the power to act pursuant to Article VI, Section 2(g), deeming this situation to be one of those rare instances in which action without a supporting organization recommendation was necessary...The President was specifically authorized by resolution 99.132 to sign the agreements. For the reasons stated above, the request for reconsideration of the signing is not justified." | Denied | 167 | ||||||||||||||||||
6 | Russ Smith | reconsideration of the revocation of domains ending in a "-" (i.e. a-.com) | The Board/DOC failed to provide formal notification to the individual domain holders so they could state their cases. The decision to revoke the domains was not made using the processes outlined by ICANN. There was clearly not a full review by the Board, discussion period, or an public comment period. The decision was made in such a short period of time there was not sufficient time to fully develop the issues in a written format so they could formally be submitted to ICANN and placed on the public record. -ICANN staff (legal counsel Touton) refused to provide me a written decision, or any supporting documentation whatsoever relating to this matter. ICANN has not complied with the stipulations in the cooperative agreement between DOC and ICANN and/or the ICANN bylaws. Mr. Touton also refused to tell the ICANN decision to revoke the names was considered "final" even though I repeatedly asked him to provide me with this information. Mr. Touton knowingly and willfully violated the ICANN bylaws and the agreement between DOC and ICANN. -Public statements made by ICANN Board member Roberts clearly indicated in public statements that the primary reason for revoking these domains was the concern over issues involving trademarks and/or the Lanham Act. The ICANN Board has no authority to revoke names based on Lanham Act considerations except as outlined in the domain name dispute policy. -Some domain names are currently being used in Commerce. ICANN/DOC has no authority to prevent mark holders from using their marks in commerce. -DOC has failed to respond to a complaint that ICANN is not following the stipulations contained in the cooperative agreement between ICANN and DOC. -The revocation of domain names and preventing their use in commerce is contrary to the mission of the DOC. -The revocation will harm several small businesses costing them money to submit refunds for the domains. | 06/01/2000 | 27/01/2000 | Recommended that the request be denied | "ICANN does not have the ability to cancel or revoke specific domain names; rather, ICANN has the power to enforce the terms of its agreements with registries and registrars, which may require the cancellation of registrations performed by mistake...t the ICANN staff was correct in its advice that the registration of domain names containing trailing hyphens contravenes the specification for the Shared Registry System, the elements of which are binding on NSI-Registry and the ICANN-accredited registrars.
The Committee has further examined the various allegations and claims made by Mr. Smith in his reconsideration request and finds them to be without merit. | Denied | 21 | ||||||||||||||||||
7 | Nigel Roberts | witheld at requester's request | 23/01/2000 | 25/01/2000 | Recommended that the request be denied | witheld at requester's request | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Paul Wilson (APNIC,submitting this formal request for reconsideration on behalf of the Regional Internet Registries, including APNIC itself, ARIN and RIPE NCC.) | Response not put up on site | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Bret Fausett | Failure of ICANN to comply with Article III, Section 2 of its Bylaws on "Access to Information," with regard to April 6, 2000 Special meeting of the Board by telephone, which was referenced on http://www.icann.org/calendar.htm. ICANN failed to post minutes of the April 6, 2000 Special Meeting. Request was to (a) prompt posting of detailed minutes of April 6, 2000 Special Meeting; and (b) formulation of internal ICANN policy to ensure future compliance with Article III, Section 2 of the Bylaws. | Deprived of access to information about action of Board. No "special harm" must be established when ICANN violates the "openness and transparency" aspects of the bylaws. To the extext that some special harm must be established, the agenda for the April 6, 2000 meeting focused on the At Large membership (I have registered to be a member) and new gTLDs (I was a member of the DNSO's WG-C). Affected as a domain registrant | 06/05/2000 | 22/05/2000 | Minutes were posted on March 9, 12 days late, and so the request has been met. Did acknowledge that ICANN policy needed to be amended, and proposed an amendment | " Committee agrees that ICANN should have an improved procedure for informing the community about actions taken during its telephone meetings, while nevertheless allowing all 19 members of the Board sufficient time to review and edit the draft minutes of the Secretary to ensure accuracy before they are publicly posted. The Committee believes that this can be accomplished by amending the Bylaws to require that any resolutions passed by the Board be posted within five (5) business days, while requiring that full minutes be posted no later than the day after the date on which the Board formally approves them. In that way, ICANN can provide rapid notice of actual actions, without having to wait for the entire Board to complete its work on the full minutes, which record discussions and housekeeping matters." | N/A | 16 | ||||||||||||||||||
10 | James K. Trefil/ Adam Corill | request that the link to the text of the arbitator's opinion in the bodyandsoul.com doman dispute be removed from ICANN's web site, and that the status of the dispute be shown as "judicial determination pending." | the domain name BODYANDSOUL.COM was the subject of a recent administrative proceeding pursuant to ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the arbitrator directed that the domain name BODYANDSOUL.COM be transferred to complainant T.M. Pacific Co., which was challenged by the registrant who exercised his right under Paragraph 4(k) of the ICANN policy to seek a judicial determination of his right to use the domain name. However, , ICAAN continued to post its decision in the administrative proceeding on its web site, irreparably harming Mr. Corelli's personal and business reputation with its patently incorrect finding Mr. Corelli acted in bad faith in registering the contested domain name | 11/05/2000 | 22/05/2000 | Recommended that the request be denied | " Committee notes that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy requires dispute resolution providers to publish "all decisions under this Policy . . . in full over the Internet," except when the Panel determines to redact portions... administrative dispute resolution providers should be required to operate transparently by posting all of their decisions on the Internet. The publication of all opinions allows the broad community of interested and/or affected individuals to analyze and evaluate the results of decisions, the strength and validity of the panelists' reasoning, etc. In effect, the mandatory posting rule permits any individual to form an independent judgment about how well the dispute resolution providers and panelists are doing their appointed tasks. Such transparency and openness is essential: the UDRP is in its infancy, and public scrutiny and input will be necessary if ICANN and the dispute resolution providers are to properly evaluate and make improvements to the policy... the administration decision which Mr. Corelli objects to is merely an administrative decision, setting forth the panelist's view of the facts, along with her opinions. While Mr. Corelli is certainly correct that his U.S. federal lawsuit may eventually render the decision moot, the suit does not alter the fact that an administrative proceeding was filed and that it produced a decision. The principles of openness and transparency that underlie the UDRP's publication rule argue strongly in favor of continuing the publication rule. | N/A | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||
11 | A.J.L. De Breed | request to reconsider the refusal by ICANN for not willing to consider the application for new Top Level Domains on grounds that the application was not accompagnied by a $ 50,000 but by a $ 1,000 check made out to ICANN. Request is that the application to be included in the following steps of the review process so that it will be judged by the board of ICANN | That the refusal mail states that a $ 50,000 check is a must and completely ignores the fact that commitment was made to pay all additional costs and expenses incurred by ICANN in relation to the review of the application. A one-sided non-substantiated demand for $ 50,000 non-refundable fee for PERMISSION to submit an application to a public organisation for an on public grounds decided grnating is unjust | 05/11/2000 | 21/01/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | "First, the staff's action to return De Breed Holding's application was entirely consistent with Board resolution 00-48, in which the president was "authorized to establish a non-refundable fee of USD $50,000 for the submission of an application to become a sponsor or operator of a registry, which the Board finds is a reasonable estimate of ICANN's costs likely to be associated with receipt and evaluation of such applications, and follow-up." The president did so, and we see no fair basis on which that fee could have been altered unilaterally by the staff in connection with one particular application. The Board made a clear decision to establish a fee, and the staff applied it in an evenhanded manner. It would have been unfair to the other applicants for the staff to have acted otherwise. Second, to the extent that De Breed Holding is asking the Board to reconsider the amount of the fee, notwithstanding the Board's approval of the fee, the request was not filed on time. The amount of the fee was established by Board resolution [00-48] on July 16, 2000. Under ICANN's reconsideration policy, requests for reconsideration must be submitted within 30 days of the action being challenged." | N/A | 77 | ||||||||||||||||||
12 | Alex Floum | action of ICANN for which reconsideration is sought is ICANN's November 9, 2000 characterization of IODesign's application as poor from a technical and business standpoint. temporary stay of the action was requested, | If the mischaracterization of IODesign's application is not corrected, his clients and he would be harmed in businesses. | 13/11/2000 | 21/01/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | "Together with the team of expert independent evaluators, the staff produced a set of evaluations to assist the Board in its assessment of the new TLD applications. These evaluations were made public as part of the ICANN policy of openness and transparency.
In making its decisions, the Board considered the staff evaluations, as well as subsequent responses from applicants, including Image Online Design. It would be contrary to the ICANN process to delete the staff evaluation from the ICANN website." | N/A | 69 | ||||||||||||||||||
13 | Ivan Vachovsky | Action to be reconsidered was the Denial of Abacus America, Inc. application to operate a registry for any of the new TLDs proposed by its application, .biz, .cool, .inc, .fam and .xxx. Abacus America, Inc. requests that ICANN reconsider its denial of Abacus' application and grant Abacus the right to operate a registry for one or more of the new TLDs it proposed in its application. | Improper/Incorrect Staff Report., Lack of Procedures for "Staff Report" Reconsideration, Lack of Procedures for Proper Board Review., No "Proof of Concept", No Equal Access to Information, ICANN is not Chartered to Set Social Policy, ICANN Went Against the Principles it was Created to Stand for., Largest ICANN Financial Supporters Were Awarded TLDs., ndependent Study from Harward Law School Selects Abacus | 28/11/2000 | 05/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | Broadly, they held that the conclusion reached was rational and the result of a fair process, with respect to new TLD selections | N/A | 97 | ||||||||||||||||||
14 | Roy Goldberg (IATA) | request was that ICANN reconsider its decision announced on November 16, 2000 not to grant IATA's application to sponsor the .travel TLD. | the requirement that ICANN's decision on the selection of new TLDs comply with the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 et seq. (APA). The APA is applicable to this decision, notwithstanding ICANN's status as a California non-profit corporation, because ICANN, inter alia: 1) was created at the request of the U.S. Government; 2) serves at the pleasure of the U.S. Government; and 3) is performing a government policy-making function -- namely, deciding whether to add a TLD to the authoritative, or "A," root server -- that directly affects a critical public asset that has been financed by the U.S. Government, and remains subject to the ultimate control of the U.S. Government. ICANN made its decision regarding the .travel TLD in a manner that did not accord due deference to these legal and equitable consideration | 15/12/2000 | 30/04/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | the process was eminently fair. All those proposing new TLDs had equal opportunities to provide information and to react to the evaluation team's report. All proposals were subject to public review and comment on an equal basis. The Board decision process was conducted in public, and resulted in a limited number (seven) of diverse proposals being selected for this initial proof of concept effort. Since it was clear from the beginning that only a limited number would be selected, no applicant could have had any reason to believe that its application would definitely have been selected, and thus no one can reasonably claim that they were misled in any way by the process -- which was in every respect fully open and transparent.... that the conclusion reached was rational. This is not to say that this particular collection of proposals was the only possible rational collection, nor that it was the "best" in some purely objective way. But it does reflect an appropriate number of proposals, providing a diversity of business models, registration policies, geographic connections and focuses, as well as sufficient technical and financial capacity to serve, in the aggregate, as an effective proof of concept....the process was fair, and resulted in a rational conclusion that met the objectives of the exercise as announced at the beginning, there is no basis for reconsidering the Board's selections. | N/A | 136 | ||||||||||||||||||
15 | Paul Stahura | Request to reconsider the decision of the Board of Directors of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") to defer action on the application for the TLD .ONE submitted by Group One Registry, Inc. ("Group One"). The decision was made not to proceed based on "uncertainty" about some aspects of the application. | affected by the Board's action on the application because without the ability to negotiate for the granting of the TLD it will be unable to offer the services .ONE creates for Internet users. | 15/12/2000 | 05/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | Broadly held that the new TLD process was fair, and group ONE's request had no basis | N/A | 80 | ||||||||||||||||||
16 | Sarnoff Corporation | Request to reconsider the denial of its application for the delegation of a new top-level domain. | its application would have been accepted had the Board been presented with the correct facts and followed its prescribed evaluation criteria. Such objectively apparent mistakes in the decision-making process are the very things that ICANN's March 4, 1999 Reconsideration Policy was designed to correct. All of the assets, personnel and resources that were presented to the Board for fulfilling the Sarnoff application were ready to bring a new personal domain name registry to the market. | 15/12/2000 | 16/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | no errors of fact or failures of process that warranted the reconsideration of the Board's November 16 new TLD decision | N/A | 91 | ||||||||||||||||||
17 | .TV Corporation | request for reconsideration of the denial of the applications for the .nom and .pro TLDs | the ICANN staff failed to consider, or improperly disregarded, considerable evidence demonstrating that the dotNOM and dotPRO Consortia were appropriate selections for new TLDs. In addition, the dotNOM and dotPRO Consortia submit that the compressed time frame in which the TLD selection process took place gave rise to considerable errors and a failure to afford either Consortium an adequate opportunity to respond to ICANN staff concerns | 15/12/2000 | 16/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | the committee held that there were no errors in the new TLD allocation process, and there was no basis to reconsider the decision of the Board | N/A | 91 | ||||||||||||||||||
18 | Image Online Design Inc. | The first action under review was the ICANN Staff and TLD Evaluation Team's report, and related comments, made to the ICANN Board during the Annual Meeting, 15 and 16 November and the second is ICANN Board Resolution 00.89, which reads: "RESOLVED [00.89], the Board selects the following proposals for negotiations toward appropriate agreements between ICANN and the registry operator or sponsoring organization, or both: JVTeam (.biz), Afilias (.info), Global Name Registry (.name), RegistryPro (.pro), Museum Domain Management Association (.museum), Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiques (.aero), Cooperative League of the USA dba National Cooperative Business Association (.coop);" | Would be excluded from competition for gTLD registry services in the U.S. Government root server system. a first-to-market effect will benefit those competitors selected and dilute the opportunity to compete for subsequent market participants. Additionally, Image Online Design remitted a $50,000 application fee to ICANN for the purposes of having its application fairly and equitably reviewed. Because ICANN's review of Image Online Design's application was performed contrary to ICANN's bylaws, it suffered harm to the extent of its application fee. Further, ICANN failed to treat IOD's TLD application equitably in violation of its by-laws and breached its obligation to fairly and competently evaluate each TLD application and ICANN also breached its duty to fairly and competently evaluate IOD's TLD Application | 15/12/2000 | 16/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | similar as above | N/A | 91 | ||||||||||||||||||
19 | SRI International | request to reconsider ICANN's decision not to approve the application presented by SRI to ICANN for a new top-level domain, ". geo" (Dot-Geo) | SRI's proposed relationship with NeuLevel, for the provision of registry services, was not properly understood or evaluated, and its scope was misinterpreted. There are non anti-competitive aspects to the Dot-Geo application. Dot-Geo incorporates numerous mechanisms to promote competition in the origin, issuance, registration, and use of domain names and metadata.
The technical concerns that were raised are not founded. Dot-Geo is a proven technology that uses standard DNS, http, and XML, thereby maintaining the stability and robustness of the Internet. The IPC rating of the SRI application was changed during the November 2000 meeting, after SRI clarified its proposed policies to the IPC. Dot-Geo's final rating was "Good," the best rating available, in all categories. Dot-Geo supports civic and commercial progress on a global basis. Dot-Geo is technically innovative. It creates the infrastructure for a more efficient, robust, comprehensive and, ultimately, more useful Internet. Dot-Geo avoids the current conundrum of assigning location to Internet data. | 15/12/2000 | 16/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | "may well be that the arguments advanced by SRI are correct; if they are, SRI will have a strong argument for future consideration, in the event additional TLDs are added following this initial proof of concept phase. But the issues and arguments that it raises in this reconsideration request, and that were in fact discussed in some detail by the Board, are certainly sufficiently complex to justify the fact that it was not selected to participate in this initial proof of concept stage, and do not provide a basis for reconsidering the Board's selections." | N/A | 91 | ||||||||||||||||||
20 | ICM Registry | request for reconsideration with respect to the circumstances involving the ICANN Board Resolution 00.89. The scope of this motion for reconsideration was to remedy inaccurate statements made about ICM Registry’s proposal, | serious concerns were raised about inaccurate representations made by both ICANN’s staff and directors. These misrepresentations had apparently seriously damaged their ability to continue to generate consensus within both the adult content community and the broader Internet community and to their ongoing efforts to enhance our proposal for ICANN’s next registry submission | 16/12/2000 | 07/09/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | ICM Registry has specifically stated that it does not wish to have its application reconsidered for inclusion in the proof of concept phase. Accordingly, there is no action for the Board to take with respect to the Board’s actual decision at this time. | N/A | 265 | ||||||||||||||||||
21 | Telnic Limited | request for reconsideration of the denial of the applications for the .TEL TLD | the arguments raised by the ITU were not relevant to the Telnic Application and should not have been used to prevent the issuance of the .TEL TLD to Telnic. | 24/11/2000 | 30/04/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | no errors of fact or failures of process that warrant the reconsideration of the Board's November 16, 2000 new TLD decision | N/A | 157 | ||||||||||||||||||
22 | Beltraide | Request to review ICANN's decision to issue .biz as a new generic top-level domain (TLD) for operation by the company JVTeam L.L.C. | ICANN's actions in a manner directly contrary to its own published standards for the selection of new TLDs. ICANN's criteria for assessing TLD proposals clearly state that gTLDs that would cause confusion with existing TLDs having similar pronunciations or meanings should be avoided. The creation of a new .biz registry clearly amounts to the creation of a new TLD that is matching in pronunciation and meaning to the present .bz TLD assigned to the country of Belize. Further, confusion between the two TLDs is certain to occur in the promotion and advertising of the proposed .biz TLD and existing .bz TLD. Both TLDs are identically pronounced as "DOT BIZ" and both will be marketed to the same potential customers | 05/01/2001 | 16/03/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | There was no basis for reconsideration . "<.bz> could not have been created for the use of the Belize Internet community in view of the <.bs> ccTLD that was created at the same time for use by the Internet community in the Bahamas. 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.>" | N/A | 70 | ||||||||||||||||||
23 | .Kids Domain Inc. | requests reconsideration and clarification of the status of the denied application for the .kids gTLD as well as reconsideration (or disclosure) of the accounting of the funds collected by the gTLD applicants. | the ICANN staff, due to the compressed time frame in which the TLD selection process took place, failed to consider, or improperly disregarded, considerable evidence regarding the KDI application for a new gTLD | 01/02/2001 | 30/04/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | no errors of fact or failures of process that warrant the reconsideration of the Board's November 16, 2000 new TLD decision | N/A | 88 | ||||||||||||||||||
24 | Monsoon Assets Ltd | full and complete consideration (not mere reconsideration) of the denial of the application for a single TLD variously described as .yp, .ypa .ypi or .find. | ICANN allegedly carried out actions indicative of a flawed process in ways such as - Arriving at conclusions not supported by the facts of the Monsoon application,
Misrepresenting the substance of the proposed Monsoon technology, Misrepresenting the facts of the proposed Monsoon technology Misrepresenting the facts of the proposed Monsoon business model Making hasty generalizations of the impact the proposed Monsoon technology, Being unnecessarily vague in revealing the logic behind the staff evaluation process so as to obstruct revelation of an inadequate and incomplete evaluation, Misrepresenting the actual process applied to gTLD applications as objective when facts and public statements to Congress demonstrate the decision making was subjective Misrepresenting the actual criteria for assessing TLD proposals distinct from that posted on the ICANN website http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-criteria-15aug00.htm Relying upon faulty analogies in restricting the number of gTLDs to be issued, Relying upon a faulty classification of the Monsoon application, Misusing the authority of the evaluation staff to justify hasty conclusions not supported by the facts, thereby excluding the Monsoon application from full and complete consideration which was contracted through the application process and submission of $50,000 fee. | 02/05/2001 | 30/08/2001 | Recommended that the request be denied | Monsoon's reconsideration request was received 137 days late and moreover, there was a failure to substantiate its claims of unfairness or failure of process. | N/A | 120 | ||||||||||||||||||
25 | Verio | requestfor ICANN to reconsider the new policy set forth in the recently posted new Registrar Accreditation Agreement limiting the marketing uses of Whois data acquired through bulk access. | As it would cause irreparable harm to Verio and to the competitive environment for domain name registrations and related services. Further list out grounds for why the new policy was objectionable. | 15/06/2001 | 11/01/2002 | recommends that the Board call the issues raised by Verio to the attention of the DNSO Names Council, which has appointed a Whois committee to consider possible policy adjustments in this area. Until development and adoption of policy adjustments through that process, the Board should not take any action to require a change to the terms of the registrar accreditation agreement as sought by Verio.
| "reconsideration committee notes that the DNSO is currently conducting a review of Whois policy, including the appropriate marketing uses of bulk Whois data. The substantive challenges raised by Verio are best addressed within that bottom-up process." | N/A | 210 | ||||||||||||||||||
26 | Froomkin and Weinberg | request that the Lynn paper be withdrawn from the ICP series [ ICANN posted a paper by Stuart Lynn entitled “A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS” as the third member of the ICP series of ICANN policy documents] | The Lynn paper at its heart relates to substantive policy matters that are within the proper sphere of the Domain Name Supporting Organization, and that must be explored through bottom-up processes. Its adoption as ICANN policy without bottom-up policy development violates Article VI, sec. 2 of ICANN’s bylaws | 08/08/2001 | 18/01/2002 | Recommended that the request be denied | After reviewing ICP-3 as a whole, the committee concludes that it accurately reiterates pre-existing and already-settled policy | N/A | 163 | ||||||||||||||||||
27 | Russ Smith | reconsideration on the failure of ICANN to properly publicize the tarnishment stipulation in the ICANN staff report #2 concerning the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Sought that ICANN "(1) immediately notify all persons acting as UDRP arbitrators of this issue and (2) reprocess all domain disputes where First Amendment and/or tarnishment issues were raised during the proceeding." | Affected as an operator of domain names. | 20/05/2001 | 07/01/2002 | Specific to the request, held that Mr. Smith did not have appropriate locus, but gave some comment on the issue. | "responsibility for ensuring that UDRP panelists are properly trained rests with the approved providers, not ICANN itself. To make clear this allocation of responsibility, the Reconsideration Committee requests that a copy of this recommendation be forwarded to each approved provider. This is consistent with ICANN's past provision of basic background materials, including the Second Staff Report, to the providers to help them ensure proper panelist training" | N/A | 232 | ||||||||||||||||||
28 | Edward Hasbrouck | request to reconsider "approval" of the draft .aero sponsorship agreement with SITA as posted to the ICANN Web site 20 November 2001, and the purported "authorization" to ICANN's President to sign that agreement and make recommendations based on it to the U.S. Department of Commerce (NTIA). | He listed a set of grounds as follows: "(1) As a member of the Air Transport Community (as defined in the original .aero proposal), and as a member of the aviation media (as included in the .aero proposal), I have been denied the opportunity to observe the negotiation and policy-making process for .aero between the selection of the .aero application by the ICANN board and the posting of the completed .aero agreement on the ICANN Web site. This failure to operate openly has impaired my ability to report on this process for my readers. (2) As a member of the Air Transport Community and the aviation media, I have been, and continue to be, denied the opportunity to participate in the "Air Name Policy Group" (as committed to by SITA in the .aero proposal), or to participate in any way in the drafting, negotiation, or policy-making process for .aero (especially with respect to the changes to the eligibility criteria in the original proposal). (3) As a member of the General Assembly of the DNSO (the relevant supporting organization within ICANN), I have been denied the opportunity to participate in bottom up decision-making or any process of consensus-building with respect to the changes made to the terms and promises in the .aero proposal. (4) I have been denied a public forum before the ICANN board on my objections to the .aero agreement. (5) If the draft .aero agreement is signed, I might be able to register a .aero domain as a member of the aviation media and/or as a consultant on air transport. But the changes made to the eligibility criteria would deny me the opportunity to register a .aero domain as a consumer advocate, which would have been permitted under the original proposal. (6) Since the delegation of authority in the current draft of the .aero agreement does not include the transparency, openness, and procedural fairness requirements of ICANN's Bylaws, I could be denied the opportunity to observe the making of delegated decisions, even if that would be feasible. This would impair my ability as a member of the air transport media and as a consumer advocate to report on the decision-making process for my readers. (7) If I register a .aero domain, I could be evicted on the basis of a claim that, because I am a critic of the air transport industry, I do not "support" air transport, and thus am ineligible under the criteria as revised in the draft .aero agreement. This could exert a chilling effect on my criticism, or reporting on criticism, of the industry." | 04/12/2001 | 14/01/2002 | Recommended that the request be denied | "When evaluating requests for reconsideration of Board actions, the reconsideration committee focuses on whether the process followed was fair and appropriate and whether the Board acted in an informed manner. The reconsideration process is neither intended nor suited for re-arguments on the merits." | N/A | 41 | ||||||||||||||||||
29 | David Ogden | request reconsideration of the decision (see below) by IANA not to afford the top level .int of www.pops.int domain name to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). | unable to establish the official website for the Stockholm Convention with the top level domain name www.pops.int. As IANA had already provided .int domain names to our next door neighbors (both in terms of location and policy) to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (www.pic.int), and the Basel Convention on the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and their Diposal (www.basel.int) we had assumed that we would be able to receive the www.pops.int domain name. This is simply unfair and requires Parties and others involved or interested in the Stockholm Convention to remember a much longer Internet address than those of the other global environmental conventions dealing with chemical pollution. | 22/01/2002 | 25/06/2006 | reconsideration committee recommends that the name pops.int should be registered to the Interim Secretariat for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, subject to re-evaluation in the event that the Stockholm Convention does not enter into force within four years after the registration is made. | " it appears highly likely that the Stockholm Convention will enter into force, as indicated by the reliance of its signatories in funding an Interim Secretariat to begin operations. At the time of the supplemental submission of 30 April 2002, 127 nations had signed the Convention, though only seven nations had deposited instruments of ratification or accession. The reconsideration committee concludes from these facts that there is a very strong likelihood that the Stockholm Convention will enter into force in the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, the committee believes that the Convention should qualify as a treaty or similar intergovernmental agreement for purposes of the .int registration requirements...., the reconsideration committee concludes that, under the existing practice of the IANA (adapted to the start-up status of the Stockholm Convention), the secretariat should be deemed to be widely viewed as having international legal personality, and therefore should be considered to meet the requirements for registration of the pops.int domain name.
" | N/A | 1615 | ||||||||||||||||||
30 | Russ Smith | reconsideration request for the actions, or more appropriately, inaction by a member of the ICANN staff Dam Halloran as well as general ICANN policy for handling complaints from individual domain registrants. | As a reseller and provide domain registration services at http://TheNIC.com. The actions (and inactions) by the ICANN have served to allowed both the VeriSign Registrar and Registry (formerly Network Solutions) to disrupt competitors of the VeriSign Registrar (formerly Network Solutions) including his business as well as domain holders. | 01/02/2002 | 17/06/2002 | Recommended that the request be denied | " he reconsideration request makes no showing that VGRS has refused to enforce the above principles against its affiliated registrars, there is no basis for ICANN enforcement of its agreements with VeriSign... Mr. Smith's complaints regarding registrar transfer procedures do not involve violations of any agreements enforceable by ICANN." | N/A | 136 | ||||||||||||||||||
31 | Tony So | Request for recovery of stolen domain name, www.xtronx.com | Some sort of fraudulent manipulation of the notices sent to them to notify them of an impending change in the domain. They operate their mail servers through this domain name as well as a web site that they operate their business. The mistake led to commercial losses | 27/02/2002 | 17/06/2002 | Since the domain name was restored, recommended that the Board take no action | "The Committee notes, however, that unintentional deletions of domain names, as presented by this request, have arisen with increasing frequency in recent months. Under current policies, there is little ICANN can do to remedy these situations. The increasing prevalence of these situations, however, has prompted the staff to propose instituting a "Redemption Grace Period" policy, under which registrants not intending to delete names have a thirty-day period to redeem them. At its Accra meeting, the Board authorized the convening of a technical steering group, which has published a concrete implementation proposal for consideration at the ICANN meeting to be held 24-28 June 2002." | N/A | 110 | ||||||||||||||||||
32 | Ethan Katsh | request for reconsideration of Resolutions 02.46 and 02.47 concerning implementation of the Independent Review Policy. | The Board's action, particularly Resolution 02.46, is inconsistent with responsibilities placed on ICANN by the MOU agreed to by ICANN and the Department of Commerce. and There were no factual circumstances that justified the Board in not meeting its responsibilities under the MOU | 12/04/2002 | 24/06/2002 | Recommended that the request be denied | " reconsideration of Board actions (unlike reconsideration of staff actions) has a restricted scope that does not envision revisiting arguments already considered by the Board...Due notice of the Board's consideration of the issue at the Accra public Board meeting was given. An extensive discussion was held by several Board members. Indeed, the reconsideration request does not allege any infirmity in the process by which the matter was considered. At most, it reflects a difference in judgment between Professor Katsh and the Board as to the prudent course to take in the circumstances. That difference in judgment alone is not a proper ground for reconsideration." | N/A | 73 | ||||||||||||||||||
33 | Dotster Inc. | Request for reconsideration of the ICANN Board of Director's (the "Board") decision of August 23, 2002 to adopt the WLS proposal. | effect of the adoption of the WLS proposal is to implement the WLS proposal by VeriSign, which will destroy competition between a number of Registrars that currently provide services in the secondary market that are similar to the WLS proposal (including Dotster). In addition, implementation of the WLS proposal will put Dotster's NameWinner business out of business, restrict consumer choice and competitive pricing of similar services, and stifle innovation. | 12/09/2002 | 20/05/2003 | Recommended that the request be denied | "Board as a whole, however, was unpersuaded by those registrars' arguments. By authorizing VeriSign to offer a WLS, ICANN would remove impediments to competition, not create them. It may (or may not) be true, as Dotster argues, that its "NameWinner" service will not be able to compete effectively in the marketplace because consumers will instead purchase the WLS offering, which provides consumers greater security that their subscription will be fulfilled. It may (or may not) also be true that consumers will prefer the WLS to NameWinner because WLS will be offered through all registrars, while NameWinner is available only through Dotster....Arguments that a proposed new service such as WLS will displace existing services because it is more attractive to consumers, however, do not demonstrate a threat to competition. Instead, they reflect the operation of competition. ICANN's core values support the introduction and promotion of competition, not the protection of competitors. See Core Value 6. This Core Value is in alignment with subsection 2.3.2 of the registrar accreditation agreement; it states that ICANN should promote "competition", not "competitors"...nothing in the registrar accreditation agreement requires ICANN to make all of its policies according to the "consensus policy" mechanism defined in that agreement. the particular Board action challenged by Dotster does not involve any change in Dotster's obligations to ICANN under the registrar accreditation agreement. No provision of the registrar accreditation agreement is proposed to be revised. Instead, resolution 02.100 involves amendment of agreements on a different subject – operation of the .com and .net top-level domains – between ICANN and a different party – VeriSign. Nothing in the registrar accreditation agreement requires ICANN to create or revise the obligations of other parties under other agreements by using the consensus-policy mechanism for creation of registrar obligations as established in subsection 4.3.1 of the registrar accreditation agreement." | N/A | 250 | ||||||||||||||||||
34 | Verisign Inc. | (with respect to the WLS Policy) asked that the non-technical conditions, which are commercially unworkable, be reconsidered so that the service may be brought to the marketplace. | Six-month delay: A delay of six months beyond the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period (RGP) adds absolutely no value to the proposed WLS nor does it limit any risks for current registrants because VeriSign already committed to implement an interim RGP with WLS; Registrar blackout: The blackout of the existing registrar from submitting WLS subscriptions for its customers 60 days prior to domain name deletion is unmanageable, unenforceable, subject to gaming and results in a very poor customer experience; and Registrant notification: The requirement to notify existing registrants that a WLS subscription has been placed on a current domain name registration works to the disadvantage of trademark owners and consumers and plays into the hand of speculators. | 16/10/2002 | 20/05/2003 | Recommended that the Board give the staff flexibility to negotiate with VeriSign to tailor Condition c to result in a better customer experience, while still substantially achieving the goal of that condition. This should be accomplished by the Board's adoption of a new resolution restating resolution 02.100, with an appropriate revision of Condition c. | "VeriSign's arguments concerning Condition c (registrar blackout) do present some new information. Under this condition as stated in the resolution, the registrar sponsoring a domain-name registration may not obtain, for itself or for a customer, a WLS subscription on that domain name at any time less than sixty days before the name is deleted. As noted in the 22 August 2002 General Counsel's Second Analysis of VeriSign Global Registry Services' Request for Amendment to Registry Agreement, the purpose of this condition is to avoid an incumbent registrar acquiring a preference through advance knowledge of the deletion of a domain-name registration. While VeriSign is sympathetic with this objective, it explains that the manner in which the restriction is stated presents an "extremely poor customer experience" because the deletion date of a registration cannot always be predicted. Thus, customers who place WLS subscriptions with the registrar sponsoring the name current registration – even well before the expiration date – could be surprised when the current registrant deletes the name within sixty days and the WLS subscription is not honored. The Committee believes that VeriSign's observations concerning the particular way the condition is stated do present information not fully considered by the Board, and which VeriSign could not reasonably have presented at the time of the Board's adoption of resolution 02.100. The Committee recommends that the staff be given flexibility to negotiate with VeriSign to tailor this condition to result in a better customer experience, while still substantially achieving the goal." | N/A | 216 | ||||||||||||||||||
35 | Bret Fausett | Request for reconsideration stems from ICANN's Failure to post Preliminary Report of Board meeting of 9 September 2003 in a timely manner. | Deprived of access to information about actions of Board. No "special harm" must be established when ICANN violates the "openness and transparency" aspects of the bylaws. | 04/03/2004 | 04/03/2004 | Reconsideration Committee recommends that if difficulties with posting the preliminary reports continue, the full Board should consider the suggestion to make available audio recordings of all Board meetings. Also, the Committee will forward to the Board a proposed resolution recommending that staff pay all due attention to the Bylaws' transparency provisions, and urging staff to dedicate all necessary resources to ensure compliance with the prescribed timelines. | "he committee notes the continuing importance of operating "to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner" <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III>. Subsequent to the modification to the bylaws, external circumstances have caused some continuing difficulty with timely posting of the preliminary reports." | N/A | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||
36 | Danny Lee Younger | Request for reconsideration of the closure of the General Assembly Discussion List by the ICANN staff and GNSO | "affects me and those others in the general public that are not members of formally recognized GNSO constituencies - we now no longer have a venue within ICANN for public domain name policy discussions; only constituency members continue to have such privileges... registrars and others (such as those from the non-commercial world) will continue to have informed and insightful discussions on their respective lists, but the public no longer may participate in like manner. This is neither fair nor productive - our right to meaningfully participate in ICANN by way of a well-managed list environment has been abrogated without the benefit of any discussion or due process." | 24/07/2004 | 04/12/2004 | List was restored earlier. No action was needed | Noted that the requester's opinion about inclusion was important for participation in ICANN processes | N/A | 133 | ||||||||||||||||||
37 | Network Solutions LLC | Response not put up on site | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
38 | Bret Fausett | Reconsideration for ICANN's failure to post timely notice of developments during its closed telephonic Board meetings. | "Deprived of access to information about actions of Board. No "special harm" must be established when ICANN violates the "openness and transparency" aspects of the bylaws." | 12/05/2005 | 14/07/2005 | Recommended that the request be denied | examined the request and determined that there were extenuating circumstances in this case, and that any practical effect of the delay was addressed by the extension of an affected public comment period....To facilitate prompt posting and increase transparency, the Reconsideration Committee unanimously recommended that the full Board consider using real-time scribes for Board teleconferences | N/A | 63 | ||||||||||||||||||
39 | Edward Hasbrouck | (1) Failure to provide -- when it would have been feasible and was directly, and explicitly requested, in advance, by a journalist, stakeholder, and member of the Internet community -- any information as to the time, place, or manner, of the "Special Meeting of the Board" of 3 May 2005, or any means for attending, observing or auditing that "meeting". (2) Failure to post a preliminary report of the 3 May 2005 Board "meeting" on the ICANN Web site within 5 business days thereafter, as required by Article 3, Section 5 (2) of ICANN's Bylaws. (3) Failure to respond to his request or inform him of the decision to deny it, resulting in complete lack of openness and transparency as to who was responsible for its denial, the reasons for its denial, and the process followed in deciding to deny it. | (1) Any violation of openness and transparency is "per se" harmful, without the need to demonstrate specific harm. It is impossible to know in what ways decision-making might be influenced by openness and transparency, or the deficiency thereof. (2) As a journalist, his ability to report on the "meeting" was and is impaired by his inability to observe or audit it, and delayed by the absence of real-time information about the "meeting" as well as by the delay in posting of the preliminary report. (3) As an Internet user and domain registrant, he is a stakeholder in topics which were discussed at the "meeting". (4) As a member of the Internet community entitled to participate in ICANN's "consensus-development process", he has an interest in knowing by what process ICANN makes decisions, which was and is impaired by inability to observe or audit meetings. | 16/05/2005 | 07/12/2006 | Recommended that the request be denied | Relied on the ruling of the ICANN Ombudsman, before whom the requester had filed the same complaint. "Mr. Hasbrouck's application for independent review that had not yet been filed, but which was being distributed and was basically on the same grounds, was repetitive, trivial, vexatious, frivolous, non-substantive, otherwise abusive, or not made in good faith." | N/A | 570 | ||||||||||||||||||
40 | Network Solutions LLC | Joint Request for Reconsideration and Emergency Relief regarding the ICANN Board of Directors' vote on February 28, 2006 to approve the settlement with VeriSign. | The ICANN Board Lacked Material Information in Deciding to Approve the Settlement, The ICANN Board Decision-Making Process was not Transparent, The ICANN Board Lacked Material Information in Considering Competition Issues, The ICANN Board Did Not Consider the Effects of VeriSign's Unconstrained Monopoly Power and Lack of Consumer Choice, VeriSign's Monopoly Power Dictates That Price Regulation is the Solution to Maintaining Competition, The ICANN Board Should Have Sought Material Information from the U.S. Department of Justice Prior to Approving the Agreement, ICANN Board Members Failed to Consider the Competitive Registrar Market, The ICANN Board Lacked Other Material Information When It Approved the Agreement | 16/03/2006 | 30/03/2006 | Recommended that the request be denied | "Dismissal of a request for reconsideration is mandatory if the Reconsideration Committee finds that the requesting party does not have standing (as described above). The Reconsideration Committee may also dismiss a request "where it is repetitive, frivolous, non-substantive, or otherwise abusive, or where the affected party had notice and opportunity to, but did not, participate in the public comment period relating to the contested action, if applicable." Bylaws, Art. IV, § 2.16. In sum, these standing requirements are intended to ensure that the reconsideration process is not simply a request to change a decision that someone disagrees with, but is limited to situations where the Board did not have access to information that, if available, could have resulted in a different decision. It is not just a second bite at the apple...., the Request fails to demonstrate — as it must under the Bylaws -- why the requesting parties could not and did not bring this information to the Board's attention prior to its 28 February 2006 approval of the settlement. To the contrary, the requesting parties had ample opportunity to bring this information to the Board's attention, including the two public notice periods that the Board established for comment on the October 2005 version of the proposed agreement and the January 2006 version of the agreement. The only information that the requesting parties state they could not provide was the views of the DOJ on pricing. Request, p.9 ("The community was unable to provide the views of the DOJ during the comment period — ICANN must solicit such input either directly or indirectly from the Department of Commerce."). But these views (to the extent available and relevant) were received by the Board and the issues were, in fact, discussed at length." | n/a | 14 | ||||||||||||||||||
41 | Danny Younger | Request for reconsideration stemming from (1) the failure of the ICANN Board to notify the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee that the ICANN-VeriSign settlement agreement raised such public policy issues that were, in fact, under consideration by the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) that had formally approved a Policy Development Procedure (PDP) for which public comment was being sought; and (2) that the ICANN Board acted precipitously without taking into account the fully-developed advice of either the GNSO or the GAC. | materially affected by the ICANN Board decision to approve the revised ICANN-VeriSign settlement agreement; the provisions of this agreement will result in higher fees that I and all other dot com registrants must pay. If the action was not stayed, harm will be occasioned - namely, serious public policy issues will remain unresolved while the dot com community will have to shoulder unwarranted and unjustified increases in registrant fees. Additionally, it would also not be wise for ICANN to sour an otherwise cordial working relationship with the GAC (having already alienated the entirety of the remaining ICANN community | 17/03/2006 | 30/03/2006 | Recommended that the request be denied | (near identical to above) | n/a | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||
42 | Marilyn Cade | reconsideration of a decision of the General Counsel regarding the restrictive application of a bylaw to the requester's eligibility to stand as a candidate in the GNSO Election to fill a mid term vacancy on the ICANN Board. Her appeal is based on the failure of the General Counsel to take into account the need for unique treatment caused by the exigent circumstances of a mid term election. | mid term vacancies have special circumstances, which were not taken into account, , by failing to develop new or modified procedures, or develop clear and transparent advice on such mid term vacancies, the General has also failed through inaction to provide the required transparent and fair procedures. Given the acceptance by ICANN of such flexible application of the policies related to filling a mid term vacancy as described above, it is necessary and reasonable to provide similar flexibility in determining the eligibility of a candidate for an unexpected mid-term vacancy | 03/05/2006 | 10/05/2006 | Recommended that the request be denied | the Reconsideration Committee cannot conclude that Ms. Cade is eligible for Board candidacy without violating the Bylaws. Similarly, the Reconsideration Committee cannot instruct the General Counsel to provide modified midterm election procedures to allow for the candidacy of recent NomCom members...as Article VII, Section 8, is clear that Ms. Cade cannot, under any circumstances, become eligible to fill the current midterm vacancy on the ICANN Board without a change to the applicable bylaws.4 Moreover, Article VII, Section 8, does not allow flexibility to consider "exigent circumstances" under any situation. Given that this committee has considered the Request and made its recommendation, we see no reason to respond to the stay request. | n/a | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
43 | ICM Registry | Withdrew it later | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
44 | Michael Palage | filed in response to repeated and continued failure of ICANN to timely publish preliminary minutes of its Special Meeting in accordance with Article III, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws | As ICANN embarks upon the initial Accountability and Transparency review as provided for by the Affirmation of Commitments, it is critical that the Board Governance Committee finally address these repeated bylaw failures | 11/02/2010 | 12/03/2010 | The BGC recommended that the transparency of this process can be improved, and recommends that Article II, Section 5.2 of the ICANN Bylaws be modified Further recommended that the Board adopt the 48-hour posting rule . | modification will strengthen ICANN’s transparency and accountability, reducing the time for the posting of resolutions, providing the community with information on the resolutions passed by the Board days in advance of the time now required under the Bylaws. With that prompt posting of resolutions, the time for the posting of the preliminary report will be expanded by two business days, however, the community will be provided with the information on the actions taken by the Board to allow for the prompt posting of the type of information Mr. Palage states he was harmed by not having within the five business day period. | Adopted this recommendation | 29 | ||||||||||||||||||
45 | .JOBS Charter Compliance Compilation | filed to challenge Board approval of registration of names at the second level in the .JOBS TLD for purposes inconsistent with the .JOBS Charter | The ICANN Board’s Action should be reversed because, contrary to Employ Media’s assertion, the Phased Allocation Program violates the .JOBS Charter. The amendment approved by the .JOBS PDP Council on June 3, 2010 does not give Employ Media the authority to change the Charter, and even if it had, any such change should be the subject of careful consideration by the ICANN Board based on broad input from the ICANN community and affected parties. Members of the Coalition and the businesses they represent will be materially and adversely harmed by the by the expansion of the .JOBS space beyond employers without any of the customary and usual protections against abusive and infringing registrations, and by the absence of any voice in the policies that will govern their registrations in .JOBS. Third parties around the world will be harmed by the expansion of the .JOBS space beyond employers without any of the customary and usual protections against abusive and infringing registrations. The Board’s Action should be stayed during the pendency of this Reconsideration process, to avoid irreparable harm to members of the Coalition, the businesses they represent, and third parties globally. In approving the .JOBS expansion, the ICANN Board failed to consider material information in its possession. | 20/08/2010 | 09/12/2010 | BGC recommends that the Board direct the CEO, and General Counsel and Secretary, to ensure that ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Department closely monitor Employ Media’s compliance with its Charter | Adopted the recommendation | 111 | |||||||||||||||||||
46 | Michael Palage | request to reconsider the Board’s 25 September 2010 resolution regarding the High Security Top Level Domain program (“HSTLD”) | ICANN created the HSTLD Advisory Group to address the concerns it had heard from the community regarding the need to mitigate malicious conduct. Therefore the ICANN Board’s action in effectively walking away from the program “ICANN will not endorse or govern the program” prior to any final report from the group adversely affects those for whom this group was originally created. The ICANN Board’s unilateral actions also have a chilling effect on future bottom up consensus efforts because participants have no basis to know when the ICANN Board will take such unilateral actions in the future | 25/10/2010 | 04/12/2010 | Recommended that the Request be denied | Mr. Palage has failed to identify material information that was in existence at the time of the Board action that the Board failed to consider. The Board briefing materials identify that the work of the Advisory Group is ongoing, and is expected to elicit valuable guidance on the future formation of the program. Therefore, the Board had material information on the future work of the Advisory Group available when making the HSTLD Resolution. Information that is not yet in existence cannot be considered “material information” for the purposes of the Reconsideration process. The two additional grounds for reconsideration cited in the Request – failing to consult the Advisory Group on the HSTLD Paper and a question as to the Board’s commitment to meeting the Affirmation of Commitments – are not proper bases for reconsideration of the HSTLD Resolution | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
47 | Michael Gende | Request for reconsideration against ICANN's inaction in with respect to allowing his company to take over the domain zetamusic.com, which was requested in late 2010. No action has been taken of which I have been made aware. | potential customers naturally go to the zetamusic.com domain, and find nothing | 15/06/2011 | 15/08/2011 | Recommended that the request be denied | a Staff “inaction” cannot violate ICANN policies if the inaction relates to matters over which ICANN does not have authority or responsibility. Because ICANN is not responsible for maintaining individual domain names or domain name registrations, ICANN Staff’s inaction relating to such matters cannot violate established ICANN policies. Thus, there is no basis for reconsideration of ICANN’s failure to involve itself in matters relating to Mr. Gende’s pursuit of the domain name zetamusic.com | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 61 | ||||||||||||||||||
48 | International Olympic Committee | Board Action - New gTLD Program Committee Resolution 2012.04.10.NG5., according to which The New gTLD Committee of the ICANN Board acknowledged receiving the GNSO’s recommendation to extending certain protections to the Olympic and Red Cross names at the top level, but resolved as follows on April 10, 2012: Resolved (2012.04.10.NG5) the New gTLD Committee chooses to not change the Applicant Guidebook at this time. | would subject the International Olympic Committee and its National Olympic Committees to costly and burdensome legal proceedings that, as a matter of law, they should not have to rely upon. By subjecting the International Olympic Committee to costly and burdensome Legal Rights Objections, the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board diverts resources away from the fulfillment of this unique, international humanitarian mission | 10/05/2012 | 01/06/2012 | Recommended that the Request be denied | Request fails to state any grounds that support
reconsideration of the Committee’s 10 April 2012 decision | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 22 | ||||||||||||||||||
49 | GNSO Intellectual Property Constituency | Resolution 2012.05.06.02,.CAT RSEP Request to allow Whois changes | IPC members have a strong, consistent, and frequently-expressed interest in public access to domain name registrant contact data. Such access facilitates monitoring, licensing and enforcement of the intellectual property rights of IPCmembers and their clients in the online environment. Authorizing the .cat registry to suppress public access to much of this data will make such activities more difficult, more expensive, and less effective in protecting intellectual property rights and combating consumer confusion. IPC, as a recognized ICANN constituency, also has a strong interest in ensuring that ICANN conforms its actions to its obligations under the Affirmation of Commitments. Since this action is inconsistent with the AoC, this interest will be adversely affected unless the action is reconsidered and reversed | 07/06/2012 | 03/07/2012 | Recommended that the Request be denied | the Reconsideration Request fails to state any grounds that support reconsideration of the Board’s 6 May 2012 decision | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||
50 | Ummah Digital | Request to reconsider ICANN's rejection of their application for financial assistance from ICANN to support the UMMAH gTLD application1 on grounds that it did not meet the minimum requirements for Criteria 1 (Public Interest Benefit) for qualification for financial assistance. | material harm to the company Ummah Digital, Ltd. The company was incorporated in The Gambia to apply for the UMMAH gTLD which is aimed at strengthening the identity online of the global Islamic Ummah2 or community of 1.6 billion3 people, ensuring their participation the New gTLD Program, and helping build bridges between the Islamic and non-Islamic world. | 24/03/2013 | 11/04/2013 | Recommended that the Request be denied | not stated proper grounds for reconsideration; "BGC believes, however, that Ummah raises some interesting issues in its Request and suggests that the Board direct that the concerns raised in Ummah’s Request be included in a review of the Applicant Support Program so that the design of future mechanisms to provide financial assistance and support in the New gTLD Program can benefit from the experiences within this first round. " | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||
51 | Nameshop | request for reconsideration of Nameshop's Change Request and Applicant Support request | The applicant applied to change the string to .internet, which is not a geographical name, not a prohibited or reserved string and not a contended string. The string is relevant and descriptive ofthe mission as explained. The request is in order, but the decision is to arbitrarily decline the request without assigning reasons. Inaction on the appeal against the string change decision harmfully blocks and delays the processing of this application in tune with the application's priority queued 150 and causes risks of delays in introducing the applied for string together with the delegation of the first batch of new gTLD internationalized domain names. Any time delay would materially affect the prospects and cause considerably significant substantial material harm to this applicant. As expressed, the application is based a meaningful business concept, a TLD 'position' (a term from the Marketing terminology) of appeal to all International Domain Name registrants, the requested string is a memorable, appealing string with the good fortune of being uncontested .Internet – which is purposeful besides being commercially valuable. | 07/04/2013 | 18/05/2013 | Recommended that the Request be denied | Nameshop has not stated proper grounds
for reconsideration, and we therefore recommend that Nameshop’s Request be denied without further consideration. | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 41 | ||||||||||||||||||
52 | Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group | Staff action of 20 March 2013 titled ‘Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names’ | proposed extension of the trademark protection in question, which is greater than that which is or has been available to mark holders in any known jurisdiction worldwide, would cause our members severe harm...unfairly favor trademark holders at the expense of other legitimate interests. Staff’s plan will limit the exercise of noncommercial speech and will inhibit the participation of noncommercial users in current and future gTLD programs | 19/04/2013 | 25/06/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | that staff’s action was implementation of existing Policy, and does not contradict any established ICANN policy. Furthermore, the NCSG has not identified any policies or procedures that the staff failed to follow in taking the decision at issue.... Request, however, does demonstrate the import of the ongoing work within the ICANN community regarding issues of policy and implementation, and the need to have clear definitions of processes and terms used when seeking community guidance and input. As such, we believe it is advisable for the Board to pay close attention to the policy/implementation debate, and to make sure that the issues raised within this Request be part of that community work. Further, we believe that it is advisable to ask the community to address the issue of how the Board should consider and respond to advice provided by the Supporting Organizations (outside of the PDP) and what types of consultation mechanisms, if any, are appropriate in the event the Board elects not to follow that advice. As ICANN evolves, this is an important question for consideration in upholding the multistakeholder model. | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 67 | ||||||||||||||||||
53 | DotConnect Africa Trust | The Resolution No. 2013.06.04.NG01 | The NGPC accepted the GAC Objection Advice against their application for .Africa new gTLD ID: 1-1165-42560 and have indicated that their application will not be approved. This decision has advised ICANN staff that their application will not be approved, and as such, will put our application out of contention for the .Africa new gTLD name string, and will mean that as an applicant, we are out of the ICANN new gTLD Program. | 19/06/2013 | 01/08/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | The BGC has determined that DotConnectAfrica (DCA Trust) has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration. Accordingly we recommend that DCA Trust’s Request be denied and the Request not be considered further. We recognize that upholding the 4 June 2013 decision of the New gTLD Program Committee will have great impact on DCA Trust, and this decision is not taken lightly. However, we cannot authorize deviations from process or mandate that discretionary actions now be required in an attempt to further any individual application, particularly when there is no indication that such discretionary actions will have any impact on the ultimate conclusion. Finally, the record shows that all material information was considered in taking this decision. | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 43 | ||||||||||||||||||
54 | Booking.com B.V. | sought reconsideration of ICANN’s decision to place the gTLD application for ‘.hotels’ (Application ID 1-1016-75482) and the gTLD application for ‘.hoteis’ (Application ID 1-1249-87712) in a non-exact match contention set (Attachment 1). Also sought reconsideration of ICANN’s decision not to provide a detailed analysis or a reasoned basis for its decision to place the gTLD application for ‘.hotels’ (Application ID 1-1016-75482) and the gTLD application for ‘.hoteis’ (Application ID 1-1249-87712) in a non-exact match contention set." | The Requester will not be allowed to operate a ‘.hotels’ gTLD in the event that the ‘.hoteis’ gTLD is recommended for delegation; and - If the Requester wants to operate the ‘.hotels’ gTLD, and the ‘.hoteis’ application is not rejected by ICANN, it will need to either negotiate with the Applicant for ‘.hoteis’ or participate in an auction with a view to obtaining the delegation of the ‘.hotels’ gTLD. Both may require additional investments that are not justified given the erroneous decision by ICANN’s String Similarity Review Panel | 07/07/2013 | 01/08/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | concludes that Booking.com has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that Booking.com’s request be denied without further consideration. This Request challenges a substantive decision taken by a panel in the New gTLD Program and not the process by which that decision was taken. As stated in our Recommendation on Request 13-2, Reconsideration is not a mechanism for direct, de novo appeal of staff or panel decisions with which the requester disagrees, and seeking such relief is, in fact, in contravention of the established processes within ICANN | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 25 | ||||||||||||||||||
55 | Hotel Top Level Domain S.a.r.l. | the Expert Determination of the New gTLD String Confusion Objection regarding the strings .HOTEL and .HOTELS (HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l, Objector, and BOOKING.COM B.V., Applicant; International Centre for Dispute Resolution, 50 504 T 00237 13, 8 August 2013 | the failure of the panelist in the present matter to make his determination independently without regard to ICANN’s prior action, and the failure of ICANN staff to incorporate suitable quality control provisions into the String Confusion Objection process, unlike other aspects of the ICANN new gTLD process, constitute material failures of process. Such failures have led to a flawed decision in the instant case and have further led to inherently inconsistent results among similarity situated applicants. These breaches of process have led to the potential co-existence of .HOTEL and .HOTELS strings in the Root Zone, despite other singular/plural strings which have been placed into the same contention set to minimize this harm. This potential co-existence not only creates user confusion and harms in potential users of the Domain Name System but also negatively impacts the commercial viability of Applicant’s business plan | 23/08/2013 | 25/09/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | BGC concludes that dotHotel has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and we therefore recommend that dotHotel’s Request be denied without further consideration. As there is no indication that either the Panel or ICANN violated any policy or process in reaching or accepting the determination of dismissal of dotHotel’s objection, this Request should not proceed. If dotHotel thinks that it has somehow been treated unfairly in the process, and the Board (through the New gTLD Program Committee) adopts this Recommendation, dotHotel is free to ask the Ombudsman to review this matter. | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 33 | ||||||||||||||||||
56 | DISH DBS Corp. | reconsideration of ICANN’s decision to accept the Panel’s determination in LRO2013-0005 (“Decision”) (Attachment 1) as an expert determination and advice pursuant to section 3.4.6 of the Applicant Guide Book (“AGB”). also reconsideration of ICANN’s inaction in providing clear and well-defined standards to the Dispute Resolution Service Providers (“DRSP”) that have resulted in inconsistent decisions from the DRSP Panels for Legal Rights Objections. | DISH will not be allowed to operate the ‘.direct’ gTLD based on its application (Application ID: 1-2007-43424), if that the ‘.direct’ gTLD by Half Trail, LLC (Application ID: 1-1424-94823) is recommended for delegation; and • If DISH wants to use the .direct gTLD in the manner specified in responseto question 18(a) in its application, then it will need to purchase/reserve over 3,000 second level domains for the .direct gTLD from Half Trail, LLC or enter into an agreement with Half Trail, LLC. Both of these options will require significant investments, in addition to DISH’s existing investments with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) new gTLD process to secure the .direct gTLD. This is not justified given ICANN’s inaction in failing to provide an automatic right of appeal in the existing new gTLD dispute resolution process | 23/08/2013 | 25/09/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | BGC concludes that Dish has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that Dish’s Request be denied without further consideration. Based on the information available, Dish’s request for the provision of additional information as well as the request for a hearing both have the potential to put before the BGC additional information that only challenges the substantive ruling of the DRSP, as the record before the BGC makes clear that no policy or process has been identified that the Panel or ICANN failed to follow. As a result, Dish’s request for an opportunity to respond to the BGC, as well as the request for a hearing, do not have the potential to bring before the BGC additional material information that is relevant to the evaluation of this Request and we therefore recommend they be denied. As there is no indication that either the Panel or ICANN violated any policy or process in reaching or accepting the determination sustaining DirecTV’s objection, this Request should not procee | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 33 | ||||||||||||||||||
57 | Merck KgaA | reconsider the 13 July 2013 resolution of the New gTLD Program Committee (“NGPC”) that permitted and encouraged dispute resolution panels to use discretion in enforcing the deadlines set forth in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook | the NGPC failed to consider material information in that the challenged Resolution was based on “incomplete, and improperly compiled, reports by the ICANN Ombudsman.” (Request, Pg. 16.) Specifically, Merck KGaA claims that the Ombudsman denied Merck KGaA’s right to be heard and issued its recommendations to the NGPC on the basis of unilateral communications with only the Objector’s position being presented. | 30/08/2013 | 10/10/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | Merck KGaA has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 41 | ||||||||||||||||||
58 | Amazon EU S.a.r.l | reconsider the 21 August 2013 Expert Determination from a dispute resolution Panel established by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) sustaining Commercial Connect LLC’s (“Commercial Connect”) objection to Amazon’s new gTLD application for the Japanese translation of “online shopping” (“Amazon’s Applied-for String”) as being confusingly similar to Commercial Connect’s application for .SHOP (“Commercial Connect’s Applied-for String” | the ICDR and the Panel failed to follow the established process for registering and/or accepting Commercial Connect’s Objection. Specifically, Amazon claims that Commercial Connect failed to provide Amazon with a copy of the objection as required by Article 7(b) of the Procedure, and that this failure is a deficiency that cannot be rectified under the Procedure. | 04/09/2013 | 10/10/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | that Amazon has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and we therefore recommend that Amazon’s Request be denied without further consideration. As there is no indication that either the ICDR or the Panel violated any policy or process in accepting and sustaining Commercial Connect’s Objection, this Request should not proceed. If Amazon thinks that it has somehow been treated unfairly in the process, and the Board (through the NGPC) adopts this Recommendation, Amazon is free to ask the Ombudsman to review this matter. | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
59 | Commercial Connect LLC | reconsider ICANN staff’s acceptance of what Commercial Connect argues to be two inconsistent expert determinations from dispute resolution panels appointed by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”). Specifically, the Request challenges the staff’s acceptance of the 8 August 2013 Expert Determination dismissing Commercial Connect LLC’s objection to Top Level Domain Holdings Limited’s (“TLDH”) new gTLD application for the Chinese translation of “shop” (“TLDH’s Applied-for String”) in light of the 21 August 2013 Expert Determination sustaining Commercial Connect’s objection to Amazon EU S.a.r.l.’s (“Amazon”) new gTLD application for the Japanese translation of “online shopping” (“Amazon’s Applied-for String”). | that the TLDH Panel and the Amazon Panel inconsistently applied the standard for evaluating string confusion objections., its participation in the dispute resolution process was predicated on its reliance that DRSP-appointed panels would comply with the clear and well-defined guidance provided by ICANN and that ICANN would only accept determinations that complied with ICANN’s guidance. Commercial Connect claims that ICANN’s “failure to provide and ensure compliance with clear and well defined guidance has resulted in inconsistent results in identical fact patterns.” ( | 05/09/2013 | 10/10/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | Commercial Connect has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and we therefore recommend that Commercial Connect’s Request be denied without further consideration. As there is no indication that the TLDH Panel violated any policy or process in dismissing Commercial Connect’s objection, and there is similarly no indication that ICANN acted inconsistent with any established policy or procedure, this Request should not proceed. If Commercial Connect thinks that it has somehow been treated unfairly in the process, and the Board (through the New gTLD Program Committee) adopts this Recommendation, Commercial Connect is free to ask the Ombudsman to review this matter | Adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 35 | ||||||||||||||||||
60 | NCSG | reconsider the ICANN staff’s “Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request” (“DIDP Response”) provided in response to a request from the NCSG under ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”) (“DIDP Request”). The NCSG’s DIDP Request sought the disclosure of documents regarding the “Strawman Solution” for the Trademark Clearinghouse, as well documents relating to the NCSG’s Reconsideration Request 13-31 . The NCSG seeks reconsideration of the scope of information provided with the DIDP Response. T | staff did not apply the proper standard of review in considering the NCSG’s DIDP Request. Specifically, the NCSG suggests that staff failed to: (i) apply the presumption that documents should be made available to the public absent a compelling reason for confidentiality; and (ii) comply with the core values under the Bylaws, Article I, Section 2, Subsections 7 and 8 and Section 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments. | 08/09/2013 | 29/10/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | NCSG has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and is, therefore, denied without further consideration. As there is no indication that ICANN violated any policy or process in issuing its DIDP Response, this Request should not proceed. The BGC does recognize that the DIDP is an important aspect of ICANN’s accountability and transparency, including the fact that ICANN’s default position should be to release all information requested unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. | n/a | 51 | ||||||||||||||||||
61 | Tencent Holdings Ltd. | reconsider the 30 August 2013 Expert Determinations from a dispute resolution panel established by the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) regarding the objection of Sina Corporation (“Sina”) to Tencent’s applications for .微博1 and .WEIBO. Specifically, the Request seeks reconsideration of ICANN’s acceptance of the Panel’s determination sustaining Sina’s objection to Tencent’s applications for .微博 and .WEIBO. | that the Panel, in sustaining Sina’s Objection, “fail[ed] to follow ICANN guidelines for determining a [LRO] as suggested in the” Applicant Guidebook. ..also that ICANN “has failed to explicitly define the Objector’s burden of proof for the DRSP panels, e.g., Preponderance of the Evidence, Clear and Convincing Evidence, etc.” | 14/09/2013 | 29/10/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | Tencent has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and we therefore recommend that Tencent’s Request (including Tencent’s request for an opportunity to respond to the BGC before it makes a final determination) be denied without further consideration. As there is no indication that either the Panel or ICANN violated any policy or process in reaching or accepting the Determination sustaining Sina’s Objection to Tencent’s Applications, this Request should not proceed. | adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 45 | ||||||||||||||||||
62 | Christopher Barron | reconsider the ICC’s1 decision to dismiss GOProud’s2 community objection to the .GAY gTLD. | GOProud objected to dotGay’s application, asserting that there is a substantial opposition to the proposed string from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted (a detailed timeline can be found in the request itself). | 19/10/2013 | 12/12/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | BGC concludes that the Request has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration. While it appears that the Request was not submitted in a timely fashion and could be dismissed on that ground alone, the lack of substantive grounds for reconsideration also supports our recommendation that Barron’s Request be denied without further consideration. As there is no indication that the ICC violated any policy or process in deciding to dismiss GOProud’s Objection, this Request should not proceed. To avoid the timing confusion raised in the Request, the BGC recommends that staff more clearly specify on the timing diagram for Reconsideration that the 15-day deadline for invoking the Reconsideration Process for submitting requests are calendar days. | the New gTLD Program Committee ("NGPC") concludes that Request 13-13 and any potential relief sought thereunder is moot because an entity does not exist to pursue the community objection brought by the dissolved GOProud Inc. against dotGAY LLC's application for .GAY, and on that basis the NGPC denies Request 13-13. | 54 | ||||||||||||||||||
63 | DERCars | Withdrew it later | 0 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
64 | Commercial Connect LLC | seeks reconsideration of the 10 October 2013 staff decision not to invite Commercial Connect’s application for .SHOP to participate in the Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) process at this time | Commercial Connect contends that it satisfies all of the eligibility requirements to begin CPE and should have been invited to CPE at this time. (Request, Pg. 4.) To support this assertion, Commercial Connect claims that it has no objections against its application for .SHOP, and although Commercial Connect has objected to other applications, those applications are not in the same contention set as Commercial Connect’s .SHOP string. (Request, Pg. 2.) Commercial Connect also claims that the eligibility requirements for being invited into CPE are not found in the Guidebook and were only recently published; asserting that the last four requirements – requiring that all members of the contention set “pass” – “is random and only causes harm to all applicants in the set.” | 25/10/2013 | 12/12/2013 | Recommended that the request be denied | Commercial Connect has not
stated proper grounds for reconsideration . t the BGC is delegated with authority by the Board to make a final determination and recommendation for all Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction and that the BGC’s determination on such matters is final and establishes precedential value. (Bylaws, Art. IV, § 2.15.) The BGC has the discretion, but is not required, to recommend the matter to the Board for consideration and action, as the BGC deems necessary. (See id.) As discussed above, Request 13-15 seeks reconsideration of action or inaction taken by staff. After consideration of this particular Reconsideration Request, the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted. | BCG held that no further consideration by the Board is warranted. | 48 | ||||||||||||||||||
65 | dotSport ltd | reconsideration of the 23 October 2013 Expert Determination in favor of SportAccord’s community objection to the Requester’s application for the .SPORTS gTLD. | t the Panel failed to apply the requisite ICANN standards, processes and policies in reaching the Determination by: (a) creating a new standard for determining the likelihood of material detriment; (b) failing to apply the existing standard for cause of the material detriment to a community; and (c) creating a new standard for examining the alleged material detriment. The Requester also claims that the Expert violated established policy or process by failing to disclose material information relevant to his appointment in. | 08/11/2013 | 08/01/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | t the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and therefore denies dot Sport Limited’s Request for Reconsideration. As there is no indication that Panel violated any policy or process in reaching the determination sustaining SportAccord’s community objection, this Request should not proceed. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted. | 61 | ||||||||||||||||||
66 | GCCIX, W.L.L. | reconsideration of the New gTLD Program Committee’s 4 June 2013 resolution accepting the Governmental Advisory Committee’s consensus advice to reject the Requester’s application for the .GCC string | (1) the GAC failed to provide rationale for its consensus advice on the .GCC application; (ii) the NGPC failed to provide an rationale for accepting this GAC advice; (iii) ICANN has not provided rationale for not allowing the LRO proceedings to conclude; and (iv) ICANN has not provided any rationale for disregarding GNSO input regarding the protection of International Organization identifiers. | 14/11/2013 | 08/01/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | The Request is untimely and fails on this basis alone. Moreover, s. As such, the Requester’s claims do not provide a proper basis for reconsideration under ICANN’s Bylaws. Requester has not identified what the information would have provided to the NGPC and how it would have changed the decision taken. The Requester does not even suggest that a WIPO determination on the LRO would result in a different outcome on its application; rather, Requester suggests only that a determination should have been obtained prior to making a decision on the .GCC application | adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 55 | ||||||||||||||||||
67 | ILGA | reconsideration of ICANN’s acceptance of the 16 November 2013 Expert Determination dismissing the Requester’s community objection to the application for the .LGBT gTLD. | t the Panel: (i) inserted an unsupported notion that a delineated community is only entitled to protect one gTLD with a name or acronym that is significant to the community; (ii) introduced future “Contention Resolution Proceedings” into the findings and used them as a basis in the determination; and (iii) should have addressed the Requester’s Objection independent of other objections and other applications for gTLDs related to the gay community. | 03/12/2013 | 08/01/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | the Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and therefore denies ILGA’s Reconsideration Request (Request 13- 18). As there is no indication that the Panel violated any policy or process in reaching the determination dismissing the Requester’s community objection, this Request should not proceed. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
68 | HOTREC | reconsideration of the NGPC’s alleged failure (inaction) to stay the Requester’s community objection to the application for the .HOTELS gTLD following the NGPC’s 25 June 2013 resolution deferring the contracting process for the .HOTELS string pending a dialogue with the GAC. | the Requester claims that the NGPC’s failure to stay the Requester’s Objection following the NGPC’s resolution deferring the contracting process for “closed generic” TLDs (which includes .HOTELS) violated Article 4 of ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation and Article 1, Sections 2, 7, 8 and 9 of ICANN’s Bylaws, and caused a breach of due process. | 04/12/2013 | 21/01/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | Requester has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration | adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 48 | ||||||||||||||||||
69 | DotSecure, Inc. | reconsideration of ICANN’s alleged failure: (1) to properly prepare the ICC to decide community objections and to ensure compliance with the established procedures concerning sensitive strings; and (ii) to provide a mechanism to appeal expert determinations based on grounds outside the Applicant Guidebook | ICANN staff failed to assure the preparedness of the ICC and the ICC panelists to apply the established polices in determining community objections concerning sensitive strings, such as .BANK. The Requester further claims that ICANN staff failed to provide an appeal mechanism if the decision was based on grounds outside the Guidebook. With respect to the claim that the ICC or the Panel were not adequately trained, this claim is not supported and should be rejected | 12/12/2013 | 21/01/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | Requester does not cite any established policy or process that was allegedly violated by ICANN’s purported inaction or that required ICANN to take action beyond the action that ICANN took. Moreover, there is no support for the Requester’s claim that the Panel applied the wrong standard of review | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 40 | ||||||||||||||||||
70 | European Lotteries | reconsideration of the Expert Determination, and ICANN’s acceptance of that Determination, dismissing the Requester’s community objection to the application for .LOTTO. | the Panel incorrectly applied the six factors for evaluating the likelihood of material detriment element of a community objection. | 23/12/2013 | 21/01/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | no evidence that the Panel misapplied any factor in evaluating the likelihood of material detriment. The Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in contravention of established policy or procedure. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 29 | ||||||||||||||||||
71 | DotMusic | reconsideration of ICANN’s alleged failure (inaction): (1) to properly supervise the ICC to ensure that appropriately qualified experts are appointed and adequately trained to decide community objections; (ii) to advise the ICC and appointed expert panelists on GAC2 advice; and (iii) to provide an appropriate appeal process for community objections | that ICANN staff failed to properly supervise the ICC to ensure that an appropriately qualified expert was appointed and trained to decide the Requester’s objections, failed to advise the ICC and the Panel on GAC advice relating to exclusive access registries, and failed to provide an appropriate appeal process for community objections. | 23/12/2013 | 05/02/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | There is no support in the Guidebook or otherwise for the Requester’s view that the Expert should have superior knowledge of the community reflected in the contested applications, or that the Expert lacked the training to address the issues raised in the Requester’s objections. International Centre for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce. Governmental Advisory Committee. With respect to the second claim that the Panel should have been advised on the relevance and impact of the GAC’s advice relating to exclusive access registries, the Requester did not demonstrate any policy or process that supports reconsideration based on ICANN’s alleged failure to advise the ICC and the Panel on GAC advice. The NGPC’s decision with respect to how it treats GAC advice is independent of the dispute resolution process. With respect to the third claim, the Requester has not identified any established policy or process that required ICANN to implement an appeal mechanism (upon request or otherwise). The Requester’s belief that the dispute resolution procedures should have included certain quality controls does not constitute a policy or process violation that supports reconsideration. And, as noted many times before, the procedures were developed over years of public input and discussion ( Due to the volume of Reconsideration Requests received within recent weeks and the intervening holiday schedule, the first practical opportunity for the BGC to take action on this Request was on 5 February 2014; it was impractical for the BGC to consider the Request sooner. Upon making that determination, staff notified the requestor of the BGC’s anticipated timing for the review of Request 13-22. ) | n/a | 44 | ||||||||||||||||||
72 | Ruby Pike LLC | reconsideration of the Expert Determination upholding the Independent Objector’s limited public interest objection to the application for .HOSPITAL | the actions of the Panel were inconsistent with ICANN policies, which influenced the Panel’s decision to uphold the IO’s Objection... the Panel failed to adhere to and apply ICANN processes and policies concerning Limited Public Interest Objections as expressed in Sections 3.5 and 3.5.3 of the Applicant Guidebook. | 30/12/2013 | 05/02/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | no evidence that the Panel deviated from the standards set forth in Sections 3.5 or 3.5.3 of the Applicant Guidebook. The Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in contravention of established policy or procedure | n/a | 37 | ||||||||||||||||||
73 | Medistry LLC | reconsideration of the Expert Determination, and ICANN’s acceptance of that Determination, in favor of the Independent Objector’s Community Objection to the Requester’s application for .MED. | the IO and ICANN staff acted contrary to ICANN process that prohibits the IO from filing an objection unless there was a least one public comment opposing the particular application made in the public sphere. | 17/01/2014 | 21/06/2014 | ICANN not consider the Expert Determination at issue and that the Requester’s Application for .MED is therefore permitted to proceed to the next stage of process in the New gTLD Program | , there is substantial and relevant evidence indicating that the Objection was inconsistent with ICANN procedures, despite the diligence and best efforts of the IO and staff. Specifically, the Requester has provided the BGC with uncontroverted information demonstrating that the public comments on which the Objection was based were not, in fact, in opposition to the Requester’s application. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 155 | ||||||||||||||||||
74 | World Gold Council | reconsideration of the Expert Determination dismissing the Requester’s community objection to the application for .GOLD. | Requester filed a Community Objection to June Edge’s application, and its Objection was dismissed. The Requester claims that the actions of the Panel were inconsistent with ICANN policies, which influenced the Panel’s decision to dismiss the Objection. | 23/01/2014 | 05/02/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | r, there is no evidence that the Panel deviated from the standards set forth in Section 3.2.2.4 of the gTLD Applicant Guidebook. The 2 Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in contravention of established policy or procedure. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||
75 | Corn Lake LLC | reconsideration of the Expert Determination upholding the Independent Objector’s community objection to the application for .CHARITY | that the actions of the Expert Panel were inconsistent with ICANN policies, which influenced the Expert Panel’s decision to find in the Objector’s favor. Specifically, the Requester contends that the Panel failed to adhere to and apply ICANN processes and policies concerning the requirements for identifying a clearly delineated community and for showing the likelihood of material detriment as set forth in Sections 3.5 and 3.5.4 of the Applicant Guidebook | 24/01/2014 | 27/02/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | no evidence that the Panel violated any policy or process in reaching the Panel’s determination. The Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in evaluating the Independent Objector’s Objection. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 34 | ||||||||||||||||||
76 | Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America | reconsideration of the Expert Determination, and ICANN’s acceptance of that Determination, dismissing the Requester’s community objection to the application for .KOSHER. | er claims that the Panel failed to comply with ICANN policies and processes in reaching the Expert Determination. Specifically, the Requester contends that the Panel applied the wrong standard for evaluating the likelihood of material detriment by: (i) improperly basing its finding of no material detriment on non-binding, nonpublic statements made by KMA during the course of the objection proceedings that purportedly conflict with KMA’s application for .KOSHER; and (ii) improperly relying on an allegedly incorrect interpretation of Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement in finding that Specification 11 would prevent the material detriment alleged by the Requester. This, the Requester claims, caused the Panel to incorrectly conclude that KMA would be prevented from operating the .KOSHER TLD in a disparate manner | 30/01/2014 | 12/06/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | , the Requester has not demonstrated that it has been
adversely affected by the Panel’s alleged failure to comply with ICANN policies and processes, the Requester has failed to establish that the Panel misinterpreted Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 133 | ||||||||||||||||||
77 | Vistaprint Ltd. | reconsideration of the Expert Determination upholding Web.com Group, Inc.’s string confusion objections to the Requester’s applications for .WEBS. | the ICDR failed to follow applicable ICDR procedures governing the appointment and conduct of experts. Specifically, the Requester claims that the ICDR violated applicable ICDR procedures concerning: (i) the timely appointment of an expert panel; (ii) the acceptance of additional written submissions ; (iii) the timely issuance of an expert determination; (iv) an expert’s duty to remain impartial and independent; and (v) challenges to experts. The Requester also claims that the actions of the Panel were inconsistent with ICANN policies, which influenced the Panel’s decision to uphold the Objections. Specifically, the Requester claims that the Panel violated applicable ICANN policies concerning: (i) the Objector’s burden of proof; and (ii) the standards governing the evaluation of a string confusion objection. | 06/02/2014 | 27/02/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | there is no evidence that the ICDR deviated from the standards set forth in the Applicant Guidebook, the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure, or the ICDR’s Supplementary Procedures for String Confusion Objections (Rules). The Requester has likewise failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in contravention of established policy or procedure. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 21 | ||||||||||||||||||
78 | DotRugby Ltd. | reconsideration of the Expert Determination, and ICANN’s acceptance of that Determination, upholding the community objection to the Requester’s application for .RUGBY. | the Panel failed to apply the requisite standards “neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness.” Specifically, the Requester contends that the Panel failed to follow the standard for evaluating a community objection by finding a likelihood of material detriment based on the Requester’s alleged association with gambling. | 17/02/2014 | 13/03/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | there is no evidence that the Panel misapplied the standard for evaluating the likelihood of material detriment. The Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel applied the wrong standard in contravention of established policy or procedure | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 24 | ||||||||||||||||||
79 | Asia Green IT System Ltd. | reconsideration of the NGPC’s1 5 February 2014 resolution deferring the contracting process for the .ISLAM and .HALAL strings until certain noted conflicts have been resolved. The Requester also seeks reconsideration of an alleged staff action implementing the NGPC’s resolution; namely, the 7 February 2014 letter from Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board, to Requester. | Requester claims that the NGPC failed to consider material information in taking its action and also claims that ICANN staff violated an established policy or procedure by failing to inform the Requester how it should resolve the noted conflicts. | 26/02/2014 | 13/03/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | there is no indication that the NGPC failed to consider material information in reaching its 5 February 2014 Resolution. Rather, the record demonstrates that the NGPC was well aware of the information Requester claims was material to the 5 February 2014 Resolution. In addition, the Requester has not identified an ICANN staff action that violated an established ICANN policy or procedure. Instead, the action challenged by the Requester was that of the Board, not staff, and, in any event, the Requester has failed to identify any ICANN policy or procedure violated by that action. | n/a | 15 | ||||||||||||||||||
80 | DotMusic | reconsideration of ICANN staff’s alleged failure (inaction): (1) to properly supervise the ICC with respect to appointment and training of experts; (ii) to advise the ICC and appointed expert panelists about GAC advice; and (iii) to provide an appropriate appeal process. | (1) ICANN staff failed to properly supervise the ICC to ensure that an appropriately qualified expert was appointed and trained to decide the Requester’s objections; (2) failed to properly supervise the ICC to ensure that experts are free of potential conflicts of interest; (3) failed to advise the ICC and the Panel on GAC advice relating to exclusive access registries; and (4) failed to provide an appropriate appeal process for community objections. | 05/03/2014 | 22/03/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | With respect to Requester’s first claim, there is no support in the Applicant Guidebook or otherwise for the Requester’s claim that the Expert should have superior knowledge of the community reflected in the contested applications, or that the Expert lacked the training to address the issues raised in the Requester’s objections. With respect to Requester’s second claim, there is no evidence that ICANN, the ICC, orthe Expert failed to comply with all relevant policies regarding conflicts of interest. With respect to Requester’s third and fourth claims, the Requester failed to identify anypolicy or process violation that supports reconsideration. Requester’s additional points regarding ICANN’s oversight of the gTLD program do notsupport reconsideration because they are not buttressed with any details regarding a violation of ICANN policy or procedure and they appear unrelated to Requester’s community objections. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 17 | ||||||||||||||||||
81 | merck KgaA | reconsideration of the Expert Determinations, and ICANN’s acceptance of those Determinations, dismissing the Requester’s legal rights objections to Merck Registry Holdings, Inc.’s application for .MERCK and MSD Registry Holdings, Inc.’s application for .MERCKMSD | r claims that the Panel failed to comply with ICANN policies and processes in reaching its determinations. Specifically, the Requester contends that the Panel: (i) improperly interpreted the factors governing legal rights objections in light of “wholly inapplicable” Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) standards; and (ii) failed to “accurately assess critical facts concerning the Parties’ pleadings, leading to misattribution of party intent [concerning geo-targeting commitments] and a material misrepresentation of the parties’ respective positions.” | 14/03/2014 | 29/04/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | the Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel acted in contravention of established policy or procedure | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 46 | ||||||||||||||||||
82 | dotSport ltd | reconsideration of: (i) the Expert Determination, and ICANN’s acceptance of that Determination, upholding SportAccord’s Community Objection to the Requester’s application for .SPORTS; (ii) the ICC’s1 designation of the Expert Panelist who presided over the underlying objection; and (iii) the BGC’s2 Determination denying Reconsideration Request 13-16. | The Requester, in this second Reconsideration Request for the same matter, now claims that on 25 March 2014, it discovered additional evidence that the Expert had a conflict of interest. Specifically, the Requester claims that it just recently discovered that the Expert now has, and previously has had, financial and professional relationships, both direct and indirect, with an entity that is “related” to SportAccord. The Requester claims the Expert should have, but did not disclose those relationships in the underlying objection proceeding. | 02/04/2014 | 21/06/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | the Request is untimely. Request 14-10 challenges Board and staff actions that occurred on or prior to 13 January 2014, yet was received on 2 April 2014, well past the 15-day deadline to file a reconsideration request. While the Requester claims that this second Reconsideration Request is appropriate because the Requester only recently discovered the Expert’s alleged conflict of interest, as is discussed below, such a claim does not justify an untimely reconsideration request. The allegedly newly discovered information relating to a purported conflict of interest does not support reconsideration | adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 80 | ||||||||||||||||||
83 | Commercial Connect LLC | reconsideration of the decision by ICANN staff to change the application status of the Requester’s .SHOP application to “On Hold” to reflect that the application is involved in multiple ICANN Accountability Mechanisms. | Because of the various accountability mechanisms that have been invoked relating in some way to Requester’s .SHOP application, the Requester received an email informing it that its “application status will be changed to ‘On Hold’ to reflect that the application is involved in an ICANN Accountability Mechanism.” The Requester then filed Reconsideration Request 14-11, requesting reconsideration of the ICANN staff’s action in placing the Requester’s Application on hold. | 02/04/2014 | 29/04/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | there is no evidence that ICANN staff acted in contravention of established policy or procedure in placing Requester’s application on hold | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 27 | ||||||||||||||||||
84 | Tennis Australia | reconsideration of the Community Priority Panel’s Evaluation Report, and ICANN’s acceptance of that Report, finding that the Requester did not prevail in the Community Priority Evaluation for .TENNIS. | claims that the Community Priority Panel (“Panel”) failed to comply with established ICANN policies and process in rendering its CPE Report. Specifically, the Requester contends that the Panel: (i) improperly interpreted and applied the CPE criteria set forth in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (“Guidebook”); and (ii) failed to seek clarifying responses from the Requester. | 03/04/2014 | 29/04/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | the Requester does not identify any process or policy or standard that the Panel misapplied when evaluating the CPE criteria. Instead, the Requester simply objects to the Panel’s substantive conclusion, which is not a basis for reconsideration. No provision in the Applicant Guidebook (or otherwise) requires CPE panels to ask clarifying questions. Requester has failed to demonstrate that the Panel acted in contravention of established policy or procedure | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||
85 | European Commission | reconsideration of one or more of the NGPC Resolutions 2014.03.22.NG01, 2014.04.04.NG01, 2014.04.04.NG02, 2014.04.04.NG03, and 2014.04.04.NG04, which relate to the applications for .WINE and .VIN | (i) the Resolutions were based on information transmitted in violation of internal GAC Operating Principles; (ii) the Board failed to consider material information in passing the Resolutions; (iii) the Board relied on false or misleading information in passing the Resolutions; and (iv) the Board breached ICANN’s Bylaws with respect to the commission and consideration of external expert legal advice. | 08/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | The BGC concludes that there is no evidence that the Board’s actions in adopting the Resolutions support reconsideration. As is discussed in further detail below, the Board: (i) properly considered GAC advice provided to the Board in accordance with the procedures set forth in ICANN’s Bylaws and the gTLD Applicant Guidebook; (ii) did not fail to consider any material information in passing the Resolutions; (iii) did not rely on false or misleading information in passing the Resolutions; and (iv) did not breach ICANN’s Bylaws with respect to the commission and consideration of external legal advice. Further, the BGC notes that although the Requesters are concerned that the delegation of .WINE and .VIN without the safeguards preferred by the Requesters will adversely impact the Requesters, at present this remains uncertain and is therefore insufficient to establish the necessary Bylaws-mandated criteria to support the Reconsideration Requests. | adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
86 | United Kingdom Government | do | do | 08/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
87 | French Government | do | do | 08/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
88 | Spain | do | do | 08/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
89 | Spain | do | do | 08/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
90 | CNAOC, CIVC, EFOW, BNIC, and CIVB | do | do | 08/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 36 | ||||||||||||||||||
91 | Italian Government | do | do | 09/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 35 | ||||||||||||||||||
92 | Portuguese Government | do | do | 09/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 35 | ||||||||||||||||||
93 | Luxembourg Government | do | do | 09/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 35 | ||||||||||||||||||
94 | Swiss Government | do | do | 17/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 27 | ||||||||||||||||||
95 | Danielle F. Watson | withdrew it later | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
96 | CNAOC, CIVC, EFOW, BNIC, and CIVB | reconsideration of one or more of the NGPC Resolutions 2014.03.22.NG01, 2014.04.04.NG01, 2014.04.04.NG02, 2014.04.04.NG03, and 2014.04.04.NG04, which relate to the applications for .WINE and .VIN | do | 18/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||
97 | French Government | do | do | 18/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||
98 | Italian Government | do | do | 18/04/2014 | 14/05/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | do | do | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||
99 | Amazon EU S.à.r.l | reconsideration of an NGPC Resolution directing that the Requester’s applications for .AMAZON and related internationalized domain names in Japanese and Chinese, should not proceed. | the GAC Durban Advice was untimely and was improperly accorded a strong presumption by the NGPC. In addition, the Requester argues that the NGPC considered false or inaccurate material information and failed to consider other material information in accepting the advice. | 30/05/2014 | 22/08/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | there is no evidence that the NGPC’s actions in adopting the Resolution support reconsideration. The Requester has not demonstrated that the NGPC failed to consider any material information in passing the Resolution or that the NGPC relied on false or inaccurate material information in passing the Resolution. As such, the Requester has not stated a proper basis for reconsideration. Further, the NGPC properly considered the GAC Durban Advice in accordance with ICANN’s Bylaws and the procedures set forth in the gTLD Applicant Guidebook. | adopted the Recommendation of the BGC | 84 | ||||||||||||||||||
100 | DotMusic | reconsideration of ICANN’s approval of application change requests for Amazon EU S.à.r.l.’s (“Amazon”) applications for .MUSIC, .SONG, and .TUNES and of ICANN’s alleged failure to invite .music LLC to submit a change request for .music LLC’s application for .MUSIC. | ICANN staff approved Amazon’s change requests without properly considering the seven factors for change requests and despite the fact that the requested changes “materially alter[ed]” the Amazon Applications. The Requester also argues that ICANN staff failed to treat all applicants for Category 2 Strings similarly, specifically by inviting Amazon to submit a change request for the Amazon Applications but failing to invite .music LLC to submit a change request for the .music LLC .MUSIC Application. | 07/06/2014 | 24/07/2014 | Recommended that the request be denied | the Requester has not demonstrated that ICANN staff violated established policy in approving Amazon’s change requests or failing to invite .music LLC to submit a change request. Specifically, the Requester has not demonstrated that ICANN staff failed to properly consider the seven factors for change requests, has not demonstrated that ICANN staff improperly approved changes that “materially alter[ed] the Amazon Applications,” and has not demonstrated that ICANN staff failed to treat all applicants for Category 2 Strings similarly. | the BGC concludes that its determination on this matter is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board is warranted | 47 |