en

Board Activities and Meetings

View records of actions and decisions made by the ICANN Board from recent activities and meetings.

Minutes | Meeting of the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) | 26 July 2022

BAMC Attendees: Alan Barrett, Becky Burr, Edmon Chung, Patricio Poblete, León Sánchez, and Katrina Sataki

BAMC Member Apologies: Sarah Deutsch

ICANN organization Attendees: Franco Carrasco (Board Operations Specialist), Samantha Eisner (Deputy General Counsel), Casandra Furey (Associate General Counsel), John Jeffrey (General Counsel and Secretary), Elizabeth Le (Associate General Counsel), and Amy Stathos (Deputy General Counsel)


The following is a summary of discussions, actions taken, and actions identified:

  1. Procedural Evaluation of Reconsideration Request 22-3 – The BAMC received a briefing on Reconsideration Request 22-3, which was submitted by Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. (Requestor) and which sought reconsideration of a decision in a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceeding to which the Requestor was a party (UDRP Decision). The Requestor alleges that the UDRP Decision was "not in adherence with the ICANN Rules and contradicts ICANN's Mission, Commitments, Core Values and established ICANN policies." Pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.2(k) of the ICANN Bylaws, upon receipt of a reconsideration request, the BAMC must review it "to determine if it is sufficiently stated." A request that is not sufficiently stated cannot withstand reconsideration and will be summarily dismissed. A substantive review of the merits of the Requestor's claims is beyond the scope of the BAMC's procedural evaluation. The BAMC found that Request 22-3 is not sufficiently stated because the Requestor is not challenging an action of the ICANN Board or Staff. The sole action that Request 22-3 seeks to have reconsidered is the action of UDRP Panel that issued the UDRP Decision. The BAMC noted that neither the ICANN Board nor the ICANN Staff was involved in the UDRP Decision. UDRP proceedings are administered by independent administrative dispute resolution providers, in this case WIPO. The BAMC noted that if the Requestor is dissatisfied with the UDRP Decision, the UDRP provides mechanisms for parties to resolve disputes after an administrative proceeding has concluded.

    • Action – ICANN org to publish the Summary Dismissal and notify the Requestor.
  2. Discussion re .GCC Independent Review Process (IRP) – The BAMC noted that on 12 June 2022, the Board asked: (i) the BAMC to review, consider, and evaluate the underlying basis for the GAC consensus advice that the .GCC application should not proceed, the Board's acceptance of that advice, and relevant related materials; (ii) the BAMC to provide the Board with recommendations regarding next steps. The BAMC discussed and agreed that the next steps in the .GCC IRP should be to provide the applicant of .GCC (the Claimant in the IRP) with an opportunity to submit a response to the GAC's rationale to for its consensus advice that the .GCC application should not proceed. The BAMC reviewed and discussed revisions to a draft letter to GCCIX regarding the recommended action. The BAMC agreed that the BAMC Chair will work with org to revise and send out the letter.

    • Action(s) – ICANN org to work with the BAMC Chair to revise the draft letter to Claimant and send out the letter after it has been revised.
  3. Update on Independent Review Process (IRP) Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) – The Committee received a status update on the IRP-IOT's progress in updating the IRP Supplementary Procedures and what items need to be completed to close out the work on the Supplementary Procedures. The BAMC discussed that some of provisions within the Supplementary Procedures would benefit from input by the omnibus IRP Standing Panel once the panel has been comprised. The Committee discussed potential options to help move the work of the IRP-IOT forward. The BAMC further discussed the importance of the IRP-IOT starting its work on updating the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) and the rules for appeals.  Following discussion, the BAMC asked ICANN org to prepare talking points to provide status updates on the IRP-IOT.

    • Action – ICANN org to prepare talking points to provide status updates on the IRP-IOT.
  4. Update re IRP Standing Panel Selection and Efforts of the IRP Implementation Oversight Team to Update the IRP – The BAMC received a status update on the composition of the omnibus IRP Standing Panel. The org reported that the independent consulting firm that has been engaged to provide consulting services to the IRP Community Representatives Group (CRG) in their vetting of candidates has been working with the CRG to establish the evaluation methodology and criteria for winnowing down the candidates. ICANN org further reported that the CRG is meeting regularly and there is a really strong momentum from the group to stick as much to the established timeline that it set out for the work for the consultant.  The consultant and CRG are hopeful to have a slate of candidates for approval by the Board by the end of the calendar year 2022 and are working diligently toward meeting that timeframe. The BAMC also discussed the IRP Standing Panel administration-related deliverables that the org can focus on in parallel with the ongoing work to comprise the Standing Panel.

  5. Litigation Update – The BAMC received a ligation update from ICANN org.

Published on 31 August 2022