Деятельность и заседания Правления
BGC Attendees: Cherine Chalaby, Chris Disspain, Olga Madruga-Forti, Ray Plzak, Mike Silber, and Bruce Tonkin – Chair.
Staff Attendees: John Jeffrey – General Counsel and Secretary, Megan Bishop, Michelle Bright, Elizabeth Le, and Amy Stathos
BGC Apologies: Ram Mohan
The following is a summary of discussion, actions taken, and actions identified:
- Minutes – The BGC approved the minutes from the meeting on 17 November 2013.
Reconsideration Request 13-13 – Staff briefed the BGC regarding Reconsideration Request 13-13 submitted by Christopher Barron seeking reconsideration of the ICC's decision to dismiss GOProud, Inc.'s ("GOProud") community objection to Afilias' application for the .GAY gTLD for failure to comply with the word limitations and failure to timely cure the deficiency. After discussion and consideration of the Request, the BGC concluded that the Requester failed to state the proper grounds for reconsideration because it failed to demonstrate a policy or process violation. The BGC noted that, contrary to GOProud's claim that the ICC's notification of deficiency was sent to the wrong address, the ICC properly sent the notification to the address identified by GOProud on the Objector Form as the "Objector's Contact Address". The BGC also concluded that the ICC conducted the administrative review of GOProud's Objection in a timely manner. The BGC noted that the NGPC previously addressed GOProud's Objection on 13 July 2013 based upon a report issued by Ombudsman, and approved a resolution directing staff to ask that the ICC revisit its decision in light of the report. The BGC noted that the ICC's Standing Committee did reconsider the matter and decided not to revise the Centre's decision to dismiss GOProud's Objection. Because GOProud did not demonstrate that a policy or process had been violated, the BGC recommended that Request 13-13 be denied. The BGC further recommended that it would be appropriate for the NGPC to consider this Request and the BGC's Recommendation given that the NGPC had previously considered and took action on the Ombudsman's report and recommendations.
- Action: Staff to clarify the timeline set forth in the recommendation and submit the BGC Recommendation to the NGPC for consideration.
Reconsideration Request 13-14 – Staff briefed the BGC on Request 13-14 submitted by DERCars, LLC seeking reconsideration of staff's acceptance of the 27 August 2013 Expert Determination in favor of Charleston Road Registry, Inc.'s objection to Requester's application for .CARS given the two other Expert Determinations dismissing Charleston's objections to two other applications for .CARS. After discussion, the BGC postponed consideration of this Request until after the NGPC completes its consideration of the report on string confusion expert determinations and potential approaches to address some seemingly inconsistent Expert Determinations in the current round.
Reconsideration Request 13-15 – Staff briefed the BGC on Request 13-15 submitted by Commercial Connect, LLC ("CC"), seeking reconsideration of the staff decision not to invite CC's application for .SHOP to participate in the Community Priority Evaluation ("CPE") at this time. After discussion and consideration of the Request, the BGC concluded that the Requester failed to state the proper grounds for reconsideration because it failed to demonstrate a policy or process violation. The BGC concluded that, contrary to CC's claim that the eligibility requirements for being invited to CPE are not found in the Guidebook and were only recently published, the Guidebook does make clear that all applications within a contention set must complete all previous stages of the process before any of the applications may proceed to CPE. The BGC determined that there is nothing to suggest that a policy or process violation occurred, and in fact be a process is being followed. The BGC noted that Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 15 of the Bylaws provides that the BGC is delegated with authority by the Board to make a final determination on all Reconsideration Requests brought regarding staff action or inaction, which Request 13-15 is, and that the BGC's determination on such matters is final. 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. In accordance with Article IV, Section 2.15 of the Bylaws, the BGC concluded that its determination on Request 13-15 is sufficient and that no further consideration by the Board (or the NGPC) is warranted.
Published on 8 January 2014