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.

2013-07-18-Community Applications

GAC Advice

Reference No. :

2013-07-18-Community Applications

First Delivered via :

N/A

Consenus:

Consensus met

2013-07-18-Community Applications

Communication

b. Community Applications

i. The GAC reiterates its advice from the Beijing Communiqué regarding preferential treatment for all applications which have demonstrable community support, while noting community concerns over the high costs for pursuing a Community Objection process as well as over the high threshold for passing Community Priority Evaluation.

ii. Therefore the GAC advises the ICANN Board to:

    1. Consider to take better account of community views, and improve outcomes for communities, within the existing framework, independent of whether those communities have utilized ICANN’s formal community processes to date.

Acknowledgement of Register Entry

Acknowledgement of Durban GAC Communique.pdf

Current Status/Communications Log

resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-10sep13-en.pdf

Board Action (Accept/Disagree)

The NGPC accepts the reiteration of the GAC’s earlier advice from the Beijing Communiqué. The NGPC accepted this advice<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13-en.htm#1.a> and stated as follows: Criterion 4 for the Community Priority Evaluation process takes into account 'community support and/or opposition to the application' in determining whether to award priority to a community application in a contention set. (Note however that if a contention set is not resolved by the applicants or through a community priority evaluation then ICANN will utilize an auction as the objective method for resolving the contention.)

The NGPC accepts this advice. The NGPC will consider taking better account of community views and improving outcomes for communities, within the existing framework, independent of whether those communities have utilized ICANN’s formal community processes to date. The NGPC notes that in general it may not be possible to improve any outcomes for communities beyond what may result from the utilization of the AGB’s community processes while at the same time remaining within the existing framework.