Governmental Advisory Committee: Difference between revisions
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
At the meeting, the GAC signaled that it would not recommend to the [[ICANN Board]] to extensively reserve Intergovernmental Organizations' names on new gTLDs. There was some concern that the GAC would make recommendations similar to those made by the U.N. and related agencies, which call for protections of any organization on the "6ter" list of Paris maintained by [[WIPO]], and contains 1,100 strings in total. The GAC advice calls for protections of any organization registered on the [[.int]] TLD, a little-used space for IGOs. That TLD only has 166 registrants.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10805-gac-gives-reprieve-to-four-at-risk-new-gtld-bids GAC gives reprieve to four at risk new gTLD bids, DomainIncite.com]</ref> | At the meeting, the GAC signaled that it would not recommend to the [[ICANN Board]] to extensively reserve Intergovernmental Organizations' names on new gTLDs. There was some concern that the GAC would make recommendations similar to those made by the U.N. and related agencies, which call for protections of any organization on the "6ter" list of Paris maintained by [[WIPO]], and contains 1,100 strings in total. The GAC advice calls for protections of any organization registered on the [[.int]] TLD, a little-used space for IGOs. That TLD only has 166 registrants.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10805-gac-gives-reprieve-to-four-at-risk-new-gtld-bids GAC gives reprieve to four at risk new gTLD bids, DomainIncite.com]</ref> | ||
===PICs & GAC Advice=== | |||
[[PIC|Public Interest Commitments]] (PICs) as related to [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD applicants]] and the [[Registry Agreement]] they are to sign, is a term and creation directly from [[ICANN]], first suggested on February 5th, 2013, in ICANN's revised new registry agreement that it opened for public comments. | |||
PICs are voluntary amendments that applicants can create, sign, and undertake along with the general registry agreement in order to hold their registry operations to certain standards. They seem to originally have been developed as a way to allow applicants to appease [[GAC]] members that may be concerned about how their application stands as is, or how ICANN will be able to ensure a potential registry remains compliant with its aspirations and mandate as it defined in its summary of its proposed operations in the TLD application. As is, prior to PICs, there was no clear way of defining operating procedures when moving from the long form essays in the TLD application to the Registry Agreement. | |||
For example, if an applicant expresses a desire to restrict registration to a certain group of professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, etc., the applicant can create a PIC to underline this and hold their future registry to that standard. If the applicant did not originally intend to create such restrictions as defined in its TLD application, but it has received communication from the GAC that the supporting organization intends to oppose their application to the [[ICANN Board]] without such language, then the PIC can be added as an appeal to those governments. | |||
It is a controversial topic that many applicants think was created quickly, with no outside input, and is presented in such a way that they feel compelled to make a decision without fully understanding the proposal. It seems to apply to a small subset of applicants, as only 145 of 1,409 strings were flagged by [[GAC]] Early Warnings, the primary target for PICs.<ref name= "PIC DI">[http://domainincite.com/11795-icanns-new-gtld-public-interest-commitments-idea-genius-or-pure-crazy ICANNs New gTLD Public Interest Commitments, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref> The dispute resolution procedure, the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process or PICDRP, has yet to be defined. Applicants were given one month, until March 5th, to submit their PICs. It seemed to conflict with other deadlines, such as the end of objection filling just a week later, so, "potential objectors would have to decide whether to file their objections based on PICs that have been published for just one week and that could be amended post-deadline."<ref name= "PIC DI"></ref><ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm Public Comment, Base Agreement, 5 Feb 13, ICANN.org] Retrieved 4 Mar 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> | |||
==References== | ==References== |