27,652
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: + + +
→New gTLDs
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>
In January 2013, further accommodations were made to the [[GAC]]'s power for remediation and the applicants' abilities to respond. While official GAC Warnings had yet to arrive, the GAC Early Advice had, and ICANN Chairman, [[Steve Crocker]], signaled that changes to applications to implement GAC recommendations "would in all likelihood be permitted". While firm policy was not immedietley offered, it was a recognition of an issue that arose following [[ICANN 45]] in Toronto, that is, if and how the applicants could change their applications to satisfy the GAC and if those changes would be binding. The latter issue, turning an applicants' proposed procedures into binding contractual agreements, is another concern for the GAC.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11646-gac-early-warnings-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-important/comment-page-1#comment-23421 GAC Early Warnings Just got A Whole Lot More Important, DomainIncite.com]Published & Retrieve 18 Jan 2013</ref>
===Early Warnings===
===Early Warnings===
On November 21st, 2012, the 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. This is the precursor to GAC advice, which requires consensus within the GAC, but 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>
On November 21st, 2012, the 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. This is the precursor to GAC advice, which requires consensus within the GAC, but 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>