http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status  refers to it as the objection and dispute resolution process:

"Objection and Dispute Resolution The objection period for new gTLDs began on 13 June 2012 and has been extended to 13 March 2013. Once the objection filing period closes, all objections received will move through a dispute resolution process."

So I feel safe arguing we are now in a dispute resolution process

I am not saying anything normative other than we should describe it in recognizable terms used by others in this case, as what the process its being called is not the crux of the issue at hand.  I have no opinion on whether this is an appropriate name for the objection-response-adjudication process.  But if necessary to get consensus on this, call it the objection and dispute resolution process.


Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>IMHO objection != dispute
>
>-Jorge
>
>On May 14, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Going back to your original question, my point was that the whole ICC
>thing is dispute resolution process.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 14 May 2013, at 00:36, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> 
>>> That's more or less the same interpretation I've on this side. I
>think that we may see some dispute resolution in cases where more than
>one applicant passes the initial evaluation for the same string. Not
>sure about amazon, but I'm sure that for Patagonia there is a single
>applicant.
>>> 
>>> -Jorge
>>> 
>>> On May 13, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Objections have been filed, and people have had to respond to them
>(or not as they chose), even if they weren't through the Initial
>Evaluation first.
>>>> 
>>>> Strictly speaking I don't think any ICC panels have been formed yet
>(not that I would know for sure), but I think of the process as having
>begun.
>>>> 
>>>> On the list of pending cases:
>http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883
>>>> 
>>>> .AMAZON (Application ID: 1-1315-58086)
>......................................................................................................
>22
>>>> 
>>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254)
>..................................................................................................
>15
>>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254)
>..................................................................................................
>26
>>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254)
>................................................................................................
>134
>>>> 
>>>> I think them calling it a pending case mens it is in the process.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 13 May 2013, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Good point, Jorge, I think what Avri meant was that an objection
>to those strings had been lodged. Avri, can you clarify quickly? 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>Behalf
>>>>>> Of Jorge Amodio
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:54 PM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support
>for
>>>>>> diversity of views in our community
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Forgive my ignorance or I may have missed something but I don't
>think that
>>>>>> there is any string from the first new gTLD batch in the "dispute
>resolution"
>>>>>> stage yet, afaik that comes after the evaluation results, isn't
>it ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 13, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Folks:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The edited version of the draft is at:
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-
>>>>>> B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the
>current
>>>>>> version states it does not take a position on the amazon and
>patagonia
>>>>>> applications.  (Remember we are not commenting on individual
>applications
>>>>>> in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I
>will be filing
>>>>>> them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections.  
>Thanks to
>>>>>> Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to get
>a statement
>>>>>> we can submit as a group.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>> 

Avri Doria