Changes

ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé noted around the imminent closing of the PIC submission date that this issue has the potential for pushing back the receipt of [[GAC]] advice and therefore the entire TLD implementation schedule, which is tightly fixed and aiming to recommend the first TLDs for delegation by April 23rd. ICANN will not recommend TLDs for implementation without the GAC's final advice, and the GAC seems to be placing a great import on the submission of PICs, to which the applicants remain wary.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12138-pics-could-be-beijing-deal-breaker-for-new-gtlds Application Download, PICS could be Beijing Deal Breaker for New gTLDs DomainIncite.com]Published March 4th, Retrieved March 5th 2013</ref>

ICANN CEO Fadi Chehadé noted around the imminent closing of the PIC submission date that this issue has the potential for pushing back the receipt of [[GAC]] advice and therefore the entire TLD implementation schedule, which is tightly fixed and aiming to recommend the first TLDs for delegation by April 23rd. ICANN will not recommend TLDs for implementation without the GAC's final advice, and the GAC seems to be placing a great import on the submission of PICs, to which the applicants remain wary.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/12138-pics-could-be-beijing-deal-breaker-for-new-gtlds Application Download, PICS could be Beijing Deal Breaker for New gTLDs DomainIncite.com]Published March 4th, Retrieved March 5th 2013</ref>

===Registry Stakeholder Group Objects===

===Stakeholder Reactions===

ICANN's [[RySG|Registry Stakeholder Group]] is very much opposed to the PICs and the rest of the proposed Registry Agreement, which includes provisions to only allow new registries to work with registrars that are party to their own new registrar accreditation agreement, which has yet to be settled upon. TLD applicants have argued that they are being used as a "wedge" to force registrars into signing a still non-existent agreement. The RySg has said, the Registry Agreement “contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it should be withdrawn in its entirety." The U.S. Governement's [[NTIA|National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], from which ICANN is given its mandate and oversight, has encouraged all applicants to submit PICs that related to verification of registration, the validity of [[Whois]] data, and help protect the "creative sector", a reference to content producers that are often subject to piracy on the Internet.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11987-ntia-fights-big-contents-corner-tells-all-new-gtld-applicants-to-submit-pics NTIA Fights Big Contents Corner Tells All New gTLD Applicants to Submit PICs, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref>

ICANN's [[RySG|Registry Stakeholder Group]] is very much opposed to the PICs and the rest of the proposed Registry Agreement, which includes provisions to only allow new registries to work with registrars that are party to their own new registrar accreditation agreement, which has yet to be settled upon. TLD applicants have argued that they are being used as a "wedge" to force registrars into signing a still non-existent agreement. The RySg has said, the Registry Agreement “contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it should be withdrawn in its entirety." The U.S. Governement's [[NTIA|National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], from which ICANN is given its mandate and oversight, has encouraged all applicants to submit PICs that related to verification of registration, the validity of [[Whois]] data, and help protect the "creative sector", a reference to content producers that are often subject to piracy on the Internet.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11987-ntia-fights-big-contents-corner-tells-all-new-gtld-applicants-to-submit-pics NTIA Fights Big Contents Corner Tells All New gTLD Applicants to Submit PICs, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref>

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}