Changes

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 signaled regarding 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>

In January 2013, there was further clarification regarding the applicants' abilities to respond to GAC advice by submitting change requests to their applications. While official GAC Advice had yet to arrive, the GAC Early Warnings had, and ICANN Chairman, [[Steve Crocker]], signaled that changes to applications to implement GAC recommendations "would in all likelihood be permitted", under the not explicitly defined reasons for acceptable changes contained in the applicant guidebook. 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, which Mr. Crocker noted the board would discuss.<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===