[council] Resolutions from new gTLD committee meeting on 18 May 2013 in Amsterdam

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

From:  
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-18may13-en.htm

Approved Resolution | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee

18 May 2013

 
 1.  Consent Agenda:

   a.   Approval of Minutes of New gTLD Program Committee Meeting of 26 March 
2013, 5 April 2013 and 11 April 2013

Resolved (2013.05.18.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee approves the minutes 
of the 26 March 2013, 5 April 2013 and 11 April 2013 Meetings of the New gTLD 
Program Committee.

   b.   BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-1

Whereas, Ummah's Digital, Ltd.'s ("Ummah") Reconsideration Request, Request 
13-1, sought reconsideration of the staff conclusion that the Ummah gTLD 
application "is ineligible for further review under the New gTLD Program," 
which was based on the Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP) determination that 
Ummah's application did not meet the criteria for financial assistance.

Whereas, the BGC recommended that Reconsideration Request 13-1 be denied 
because Ummah has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration, and Ummah's 
stay request fails to satisfy the Bylaws' requirements for a stay.

Whereas, the BGC noted 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."

Resolved (2013.05.18.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the 
recommendation of the BGC that Reconsideration Request 13-1 be denied on the 
basis that Ummah has not stated proper grounds for reconsideration and that 
Ummah's stay request fails to satisfy the Bylaws' requirements for a stay.

Resolved (2013.05.18.NG03), the Board directs the President and CEO to include 
the concerns raised in Ummah's Reconsideration Request in the 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.




c.   BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-2

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 re-evaluation 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 2013.05.18.NG04

....

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 
re-evaluation 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.

 

2.  Main Agenda:

a.    Addressing GAC Advice from Beijing Communique

No resolution taken.