EN
Down Arrow
User Icon
Hamburger Icon
`
SEARCH
X

GAC WEBSITE SEARCH

SEARCH

GAC Advice

The GAC provides advice to the ICANN Board on policy matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN’s policies and various laws, international agreements and public policy objectives. GAC Advice is communicated to the ICANN Board through either a Communique or a formal piece of Correspondence.

2012-10-17-EW1

GAC Advice

Reference No. :

2012-10-17-EW1

First Delivered via :

N/A

Consenus:

Consensus met

2012-10-17-EW1

Communication

The GAC acknowledges that the new gTLD program provides mechanisms to address a range of risks and identified concerns. The Applicant Guidebook also provides a specific role for the GAC to provide early warnings and advice on new gTLD applications that raise public policy issues. In this context, and in light of the full range of received applications, individual GAC members are considering whether the existing mechanisms provided in the Guidebook are sufficient to address the identified issues in all instances. In the interest of sharing information with the community, and in advance of individual GAC members issuing any early warnings on specific applications, the GAC notes that individual GAC members are considering range of specific issues including:

    • Consumer protection
    • Strings that are linked to regulated market sectors, such as the financial, health and charity sectors
    • Competition issues
    • Strings that have broad or multiple uses or meanings, and where one entity is seeking exclusive use
    • Religious terms where the applicant has no, or limited, support from the relevant religious organisations or the religious community.
    • Minimising the need for defensive registrations
    • Protection of geographic names
    • Intellectual property rights particularly in relation to strings aimed at the distribution of music, video and other digital material
    • The relationship between new gTLD applications and all applicable legislation

The GAC looks forward to discussing these issues with the ICANN community, and expects to finalise GAC advice on gTLD applications following the ICANN meeting in April 2013. As part of this work, some GAC members may initiate direct dialogue with applicants, including through the early warning process. The GAC confirms that it will forward early warnings from GAC members on 20 November 2012, and encourages a collaborative and cooperative approach to addressing any issues identified in those early warnings.

The statements and commitments detailed in individual gTLD applications are a critical input to the GAC’s work in this area.

The GAC advises the ICANN Board:

    • The GAC expects that applicants would not be penalised where the standard provisions of a contract are amended in order to meet specific obligations entered into in order to meet governmental concerns.

GAC Acknowledgement of Register Entry

15 November 2012

Next Steps/Required Action

Board to respond - 5 December 2012 11 January 2013, 16 January 2013

Responsible Party

ICANN Board

Target Completion Date

Response submitted on 16 January 2013

Current Status/Communications Log

Board Response to GAC Toronto Communique.pdf

Board Action (Accept/Disagree)

'Applicants are permitted to modify their applications pursuant to the New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria, posted at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/customer-service/change-requests

The determination as to whether changes will be approved is based on a weighing of the following seven factors:

  1. Explanation – Is a reasonable explanation provided?
  2. Evidence that original submission was in error – Are there indicia to support an assertion that the change merely corrects an error?
  3. Other third parties affected – Does the change affect other third parties materially?
  4. Precedents – Is the change similar to others that have already been approved? Could the change lead others to request similar changes that could affect third parties or result in undesirable effects on the program?
  5. Fairness to applicants – Would allowing the change be construed as fair to the general community? Would disallowing the change be construed as unfair?
  6. Materiality – Would the change affect the evaluation score or require re-evaluation of some or all of the application? Would the change affect string contention or community priority consideration?
  7. Timing – Does the timing interfere with the evaluation process in some way? ICANN reserves the right to require a re-evaluation of the application in the event of a material change. This could involve additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent application round. (AGB §1.2.7.)

It is not possible to generalize as to whether change requests resulting from early warnings would be permitted in all instances. But if such requests are intended solely to address the 'range of specific issues' listed on page 3 of the Toronto Communique, and do not otherwise conflict with the change request criteria noted above, then such requests would in all likelihood be permitted.

The Board does not intend to impose any penalty on applicants where the standard provisions of a contract are amended in order to meet specific obligations entered into in order to meet governmental concerns. Additional time may be necessary to execute non-standard registry agreements.