Changes

==Overview==

==Overview==

[[ICANN]] relies on certain advisory committees to receive guidance and advice related to the interests and needs of stakeholders who are not able to directly participate in the [[Supporting Organizations]]. One of these advisory committees is the Governmental Advisory Committee, which is composed of representatives of national governments from all over the world.   

[[ICANN]] relies on certain [[Advisory Committee|advisory committees]] to receive guidance and advice related to the interests and needs of stakeholders who are not able to directly participate in the [[Supporting Organizations]]. One of these advisory committees is the Governmental Advisory Committee, which is composed of representatives of national governments from all over the world.   

The GAC is an advisory committee to ICANN, created under the ICANN ByLaws. It provides advice to ICANN on public policy aspects of ICANN’s responsibilities with regard to the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). One of its most important responsibilities is analyzing ICANN's activities and policies as they might influence governments, especially with regards to the interaction between [[ICANN]]'s policies and national laws or international agreements.<ref>[http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/ICANN_Governmental_Advisory_Committee GAC considerations], Wikia.com.</ref>

The GAC is an advisory committee to ICANN, created under the ICANN ByLaws. It provides advice to ICANN on public policy aspects of ICANN’s responsibilities with regard to the Internet [[Domain Name System]] (DNS). One of its most important responsibilities is analyzing ICANN's activities and policies as they might influence governments, especially with regard to the interaction between [[ICANN]]'s policies and national laws or international agreements.<ref>[http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/ICANN_Governmental_Advisory_Committee GAC considerations], Wikia.com.</ref>

The GAC is not a decision-making body. It advises ICANN on issues that are within ICANN’s scope. GAC advice has a particular status under the ICANN ByLaws. Its advice must be duly taken into account by the ICANN Board, and where the Board proposes actions inconsistent with GAC advice it must give reasons for doing so and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC appoints a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board. This is normally the GAC Chair.

The GAC is not a decision-making body. It advises ICANN on issues that are within ICANN’s scope. GAC advice has a particular status under the ICANN ByLaws. Its advice must be duly taken into account by the [[ICANN Board]], and where the Board proposes actions inconsistent with GAC advice it must give reasons for doing so and attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The GAC appoints a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board. This is normally the GAC Chair.  

The GAC has the duty to incorporate the diverse opinions and perspective of its members when supplying advice to [[ICANN]], and it's imperative that its members stay informed about new Internet trends and pending policy issues.  

 

The GAC has the duty to incorporate the diverse opinions and perspectives of its members when supplying advice to [[ICANN]], and it's imperative that its members stay informed about new Internet trends and pending policy issues.  

===GAC Structure===

===GAC Structure===

The GAC has more than 171 members as well as 35 observers<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC About GAC]. Retrieved 27 Nov 2017.</ref>, and three of its important organizational features are:

As of 2022, the GAC has 180 government members and 38 observers, which participate equally in all discussions.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/HuBAngrxBhqYBshym GAC Capacity Building and Outreach Workshop 1: What is the GAC and How Does It Work?, ICANN 75]</ref> Three of its important organizational features are:<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC About GAC]. Retrieved 27 Nov 2017.</ref>

* A structure consisting of elected officers, a Chair and Vice-chairs which currently include:

* A structure consisting of elected officers, which currently includes:

** [[Manal Ismail]], Egypt (Chair)

** GAC Chair: [[Nicolas Caballero]] (Paraguay);

** [[Ghislain de Salins]], France (Vice-Chair)

** GAC Vice Chairs: [[Ola Bergström]] (Sweden) and [[Francis Olivier Cubahiro]] (Burundi); and

** [[Guo Feng]], China (Vice-Chair)

** [[Zeina Bou Harb]] (Lebanon), [[Nigel Hickson]] (United Kingdom), and [[Wang Lang]] (China).<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann76-policy-outcome-report-10apr23-en.pdf ICANN76 Policy Outcomes Report, pg23</ref>  

** [[Cherif Diallo]], Senegal (Vice-Chair)

** [[Par Brumeck]], Niue (Vice-Chair)

** [[Milagros Castañón Seoane]], Peru (Vice-Chair)<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Leadership, GAC] Retrieved 27 Nov 2017</ref>

 

* Its independent secretariat - the [[ACIG]] GAC Secretariat, financially supported by Norway, the Netherlands, and Brazil. The ACIG reports to the GAC Chair. Members include:

* Its independent secretariat - the [[ACIG]] GAC Secretariat, financially supported by Norway, the Netherlands, and Brazil. The ACIG reports to the GAC Chair. Members include:

** [[Tom Dale]]

** [[Tom Dale]]

** [[Michelle Scott Tucker]]

** [[Michelle Scott Tucker]]

* Its organization has at least three meetings on a yearly basis which are held in conjunction with ICANN's meetings.

* Its organization at least three meetings on a yearly basis which are held in conjunction with ICANN's meetings.

The GAC creates different Working Groups to study and address each issue; for instance, there was a different working group for [[IDN]]s than the one for [[ccTLD]]s.<ref>[http://www.aptld.org/dubaiJune2007/04%20JK%20-%20APTLD%20meeting%20June%202007.pdf GAC working groups], apTLD.org. Published June 2007.</ref>

The GAC creates different Working Groups to study and address each issue; for instance, there was a different working group for [[IDN]]s than the one for [[ccTLD]]s.<ref>[http://www.aptld.org/dubaiJune2007/04%20JK%20-%20APTLD%20meeting%20June%202007.pdf GAC working groups], apTLD.org. Published June 2007.</ref>

 

Other such advisory committees which are important for ICANN are:

* [[ALAC]] (At-Large Advisory Committee)

#GAC members, observers, and working groups draft advice, which the GAC then reviews.

* [[Root Server System Advisory Committee]]

* [[SSAC]] (Security and Stability Advisory Committee)

* [[TLG]] (Technical Liaison Group)

* are comprised of volunteer GAC members and observers;

* rely on briefs for meetings and provide reports for GAC plenaries;

* provide expertise, recommendations, or draft documentation to be considered by GAC Leadership or the full GAC.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/HuBAngrxBhqYBshym GAC Capacity Building and Outreach Workshop 1: What is the GAC and How Does It Work?, ICANN 75]</ref>

|- style="font-weight:bold;"

| [[ICANN Board]]-GAC Interaction Group (BGIG)

|-

| GAC Operating Principles Evolution Working Group (GOPEWG)

| [https://gac.icann.org/work-plans/GOPE-WG-Work-Plan-2022-2023.pdf 22/23 Work Plans] <br/> [https://gac.icann.org/principles-and-guidelines/gac-working-group-guidelines.pdf WG Principles & Guidelines]

| [https://gac.icann.org/activity/gac-involvement-in-work-stream-2-recommendations-implementation Work Stream 2 Recommendations Implementation]

| [[Universal Acceptance]] and [[IDN|Internationalized Domain Names]] Working Group (UA-IDN WG)

| GAC Working Group on Under-Served Regions (USRWG)

| [https://gac.icann.org/activity/gac-capacity-development-workshop-2017-2018 GAC Capacity Development Workshop] <br/>[https://gac.icann.org/activity/gac-faq-on-delegation-and-redelegations GAC FAQ on Delegation and Redelegations]

| Public Safety Working Group (PSWG)

| GAC's Participation in [[NomCom]]

==GAC Achievements, Comments, and Advice==

==GAC Achievements, Comments, and Advice==

Over the years, GAC is proud of accomplishing the following:

GAC Accomplishments:

* Setting up the principles for [[ccTLD]] management and delegation;

* The 2007 new principles for generic top-level domains (gTLDs)

* Setting up the principles for public policy for delegation, introduction, and [[gTLD]] operation;

* New gTLDs scorecard, which was important to the new gTLDs program and widely hailed as a major success and model for the future

* Setting up the principles for public policy of [[gTLD]] [[Whois]] services;<ref>[http://www.aptld.org/dubaiJune2007/04%20JK%20-%20APTLD%20meeting%20June%202007.pdf GAC accomplishments], apTLD.org. Published 2007 June.</ref>

* ICANN’s acceptance of safeguards for new gTLDs to reflect law enforcement and consumer protection concerns.

* WHOIS principles, including bringing law enforcement to the ICANN table to address cybercrime

* Structural and process outcomes, including

* Greater accountability and transparency of all areas of ICANN (including the GAC itself)

* Liaison with the ICANN Board, through the GAC Chair’s membership and a formal register of GAC advice and actions taken

* Cross-community activities between GAC and ICANN policy-making bodies such as those dealing with generic and country-specific top-level domain names.

* Operation of a travel support program to assist developing countries to participate in GAC meetings.

The GAC has been influential with regards to [[IDN]]s as well as best practices for [[IPv4]] and [[IPv6]], and is an integral part of all ICANN decisions.

The GAC has been influential with regards to [[IDN]]s as well as best practices for [[IPv4]] and [[IPv6]], and is an integral part of all ICANN decisions.

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, 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>

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 a firm policy was not immediately 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 applicant's 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===

* DotConnectAfrica, an applicant for [[.africa]], received 17 Early Warnings whereas [[UniForum SA]] received none for their .africa application

* DotConnectAfrica, an applicant for [[.africa]], received 17 Early Warnings whereas [[UniForum SA]] received none for their .africa application

The body will offer its 'GAC advice' on the applications in April 2013. The warnings are nto definitive, to not represent GAC consensus, and do not mean that any TLD that wasn't warned will not receive GAC Advice.<ref name="earlywarnings"></ref>

The body will offer its 'GAC advice' on the applications in April 2013. The warnings are not definitive, do not represent GAC consensus, and do not mean that any TLD that wasn't warned will not receive GAC Advice.<ref name="earlywarnings"></ref>

==PICs & GAC Advice==

==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.

[[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.  

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.  

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 its 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>

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 ICANN's 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 filing 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>

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, of 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>

== Relevant Articles ==

===Related Bodies===

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}</div>

{{reflist}}</div>

 

[[Category: ICANN Bodies]]

[[Category:Committees]]