ICANN Resolutions » Reconsideration Request 13-2, Nameshop

Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.

Reconsideration Request 13-2, Nameshop


Resolution of the ICANN Board
Topic: 
Reconsideration Request 13-2
Summary: 

NGPC denies Nameshop's Reconsideration Request 13-2 relating to the .IDN string because Nameshop has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration.

Category: 
Board
Meeting Date: 
周六, 18 五月 2013
Resolution Number: 
2013.05.18.NG04
Resolution Text: 
Whereas, Reconsideration Request 13-2, sought reconsideration of: (1) Staff and Board inaction on the consideration of Nameshop’s letter of “appeal” sent after denial of Nameshop’s change request to change its applied-for string in the New gTLD Program from .IDN to .INTERNET (the “Change Request”); and (ii) the decision of the Support Applicant Review Panel (“SARP”) that Nameshop did not meet the criteria to be eligible for financial assistance under ICANN’s Applicant Support Program. Whereas, the BGC recommended that Reconsideration Request 13-2 be denied because Nameshop has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration. Whereas, the BGC concluded that the Reconsideration Request 13-2 challenges: (i) an “appeal” process that does not exist; and (i) the substantive decisions taken within the New gTLD Program on a specific application, not the processes by which those decisions were taken and that the reconsideration process is not, and has never been, a tool for requestors to seek the reevaluation of decisions. Resolved (2013.05.18.NG04), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the BGC’s recommendation that Reconsideration Request 13-2 be denied on the basis that Nameshop has not stated proper ground for reconsideration.
Rationale for Resolution: 
ICANN’s Bylaws at the time Reconsideration Request 13-2 was filed, called for the Board Governance Committee to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board with respect to Reconsideration Requests. See Article IV, section 3 of the Bylaws. The New gTLD Program Committee, bestowed with the powers of the Board in this instance, has reviewed and thoroughly considered the BGC’s recommendation with respect to Reconsideration Request 13-2 and finds the analysis sound. The full BGC Recommendation, which includes the reasons for recommending that the Reconsideration Request be denied can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration. Having a Reconsideration process set out in ICANN’s Bylaws positively affects ICANN’s transparency and accountability. It provides an avenue for the community to ensure that staff and the Board are acting in accordance with ICANN's policies, Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. Request 13-2 challenges an “appeal” process that does not exist, and challenges the substantive decisions taken in implementation of the New gTLD Program on a specific application and not the processes by which those decisions were taken. Reconsideration is not, and has never been, a tool for requestors to seek the reevaluation of substantive decisions. This is an essential time to recognize and advise the ICANN community that the Board is not a mechanism for direct, de novo appeal of staff (or evaluation panel) decisions with which the requester disagrees. Seeking such relief from the Board is, in itself, in contravention of established processes and policies within ICANN. Adopting the BGC's recommendation has no financial impact on ICANN and will not negatively impact the security, stability and resiliency of the domain name system. This is an Organizational Administrative Function not requiring public comment.