Changes

===New gTLDs===

===New gTLDs===

At [[ICANN 42]] in Dakar, Senegal, GAC raised concern that if the number of [[new gTLD]] applications published by ICANN exceeded 500, that GAC members may have too little time and resources to offer GAC advice on all applications. ICANN had stated that it intended to process applications in batches of 500, and GAC urged for clarification on these procedures, in the event that different batch processes may have implications for competition and applicant business models. Furthermore, GAC stressed the importance of promoting gTLD application rounds in all countries, including developing countries.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/4816912/Communique+Dakar+-+27+October+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1319796551396 GAC Communiqué – Dakar], ICANN.org. Published 27 October 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2013.</ref>

At [[ICANN 42]] in Dakar, Senegal, GAC raised concern that if the number of [[new gTLD]] applications published by ICANN exceeded 500, GAC members may have too little time and resources to offer advice on all applications. ICANN had stated previously that it intended to process applications in batches of 500, and in Senegal, GAC urged for clarification on these procedures, citing that different batch processes may have an impact on competition. Furthermore, GAC stressed the importance of promoting gTLD application rounds in all countries, especially developing countries.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/4816912/Communique+Dakar+-+27+October+2011.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1319796551396 GAC Communiqué – Dakar], ICANN.org. Published 27 October 2011. Retrieved 23 November 2013.</ref>

On January 11, 2012, the ninth version of the [[Applicant Guidebook]] was released one day prior to the opening window of ICANN's [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]]. The new version gave greater power to the GAC in forcing the [[ICANN Board]] to manually review any application that the committee found problematic. Exactly how many GAC members it would take to cause this review is vague, but it could be as little as one nation's objection. This is a significant change given that the [[ICANN Board]] had no requirement to heed any GAC objection in the previous guidebook; the board is still able to overrule any GAC objection.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/gac-gets-more-power-to-block-controversial-gtlds/ GAC Gets More Power to Block Controversial gTLDs], DomainIncite.com.</ref>

On January 11, 2012, the ninth version of the [[Applicant Guidebook]] was released one day prior to the opening window of ICANN's [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD program]]. The new version gave greater power to the GAC in forcing the [[ICANN Board]] to manually review any application that the committee found problematic. Exactly how many GAC members it would take to cause this review is vague, but it could be as little as one nation's objection. This is a significant change given that the [[ICANN Board]] had no requirement to heed any GAC objection in the previous guidebook; the board is still able to overrule any GAC objection.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/gac-gets-more-power-to-block-controversial-gtlds/ GAC Gets More Power to Block Controversial gTLDs], DomainIncite.com.</ref>

On November 21st, 2012, GAC publicly issued a number of Early Warnings, wherein national government representatives signaled their potential concerns related to 200 new [[TLD]] applications that are considered controversial. GAC Advice requires consensus of the GAC and may be an indicator that applications with many Early Warnings will not see approval from ICANN.<ref name="earlywarnings">[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121121_first_insights_from_gac_early_warnings_on_new_top_level_domains/ First Insights from the GAC Early Warnings on New Top-Level Domains], CircleID.com. Published 21 November 2012. Retrieved 23 November 2012.</ref>

On November 21st, 2012, GAC publicly issued a number of Early Warnings, wherein national government representatives signaled their potential concerns related to 200 new [[TLD]] applications that they considered controversial. GAC advice requires consensus within GAC, and may serve as a reliable indicator that applications with many Early Warnings will fail to see approval from ICANN.<ref name="earlywarnings">[http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121121_first_insights_from_gac_early_warnings_on_new_top_level_domains/ First Insights from the GAC Early Warnings on New Top-Level Domains], CircleID.com. Published 21 November 2012. Retrieved 23 November 2012.</ref>

More than 240 individual GAC warnings were issued in this first instance, with 129 coming from the Australian government, 20 from Germany, and 19 from France, despite the fact that the majority of TLD applicants -- over 80% -- come from North America and Europe. 100 of the Early Warnings were related to closed generic string TLD applications, wherein a number of governments expressed concern about brands or entrepreneurs owning specific genre words. Other Early Warnings were related to market sectors, most importantly the financial, health, and charity sectors. Specific companies were also recipients of Early Warnings, including:<ref name="earlywarnings"></ref>

More than 240 individual GAC warnings were issued in this first instance, with 129 coming from the Australian government, 20 from Germany, and 19 from France, despite the fact that the majority of TLD applicants -- over 80% -- come from North America and Europe. 100 of the Early Warnings were related to closed generic string TLD applications; a number of governments expressed concern about brands or entrepreneurs owning specific genre words. Other Early Warnings were related to market sectors, most importantly in the financial, health, and charity sectors. Specific companies were also recipients of Early Warnings, including:<ref name="earlywarnings"></ref>

* Amazon, an applicant for 76 new TLDs, received 27 GAC Early Warnings

* Amazon, an applicant for 76 new TLDs, received 27 GAC Early Warnings