2013-04-11-CommunitySupport
GAC Advice
2013-04-11-CommunitySupport
N/A
Consensus met
2013-04-11-CommunitySupport
Communication
The GAC advises the Board that in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information.
GAC Acknowledgement of Register Entry
GAC: 2 May 2013
Board: 9 May 2013
Next Steps/Required Action
Board Action:
Item | Resp. | Start | Compl. | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Publish GAC Communique and notify applicants of 21-day GAC Advice Response Period | Staff | 18 April | Complete | |
Applicants 21-day response period to GAC Advice | Applicants | 19 April | 10 May | Complete |
Publish GAC Communique to solicit input on how the New gTLD Board Committee should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD Strings | Staff | 23 April | Complete | |
Public Comment period on how Board should address GAC Advice re: Safeguards http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm |
Public | 23 April |
Comment: 14 May Reply: 4 June |
Complete |
Collect and summarize applicant responses to GAC Advice | Staff | 11 May | 31 May | Complete |
Summarize and analyze public comments on how Board should address GAC Advice re: Safeguards | Staff | 5 June | 12 June | Complete |
Review and Consider Applicant responses to GAC Advice and Public Comments on how Board should respond to GAC Advice re: Safeguards | New gTLD Program Committee | 13 June | 20 June | Not Started |
The NGPC is also developing a GAC Scorecard similar to the one used during the GAC and the Board meetings in Brussels on 28 February and 1 March 2011.
Each scorecard item will be noted with a '1A' '1B' or '2'
1A: Indicates that the NGPC's proposed position is consistent with GAC Advice as described in the Scorecard.
1B: Indicates that the NGPC's proposed position is consistent with GAC Advice as described in the Scorecard in principle, with some revisions to be made.
2: Indicates that the NGPC's current position is not consistent with GAC advice as described in the Scorecard and further discussion with the GAC is required following the relevant procedures in the ICANN Bylaws.
Updates: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14jun13-en.htm
Board Scorecard:
Summary of GAC Advice | NGPC Response | |
---|---|---|
The GAC advises the Board that in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information. | 1A | The NGPC Accepts this advice. Criterion 4 of the Community Priority Evaluation process takes into account 'community support and/or opposition to the application' in determining whether to award priority to a community application in a contention set. (Note however that if a contention set is not resolved by the applicants or through a community priority evaluation then ICANN Will utilize an auction as the objective method for resolving contention). |
Current Status/Communications Log
10 May 2013 - Letter from the ICANN Board re: Progress in Addressing GAC Beijing Advice
6 June 2013: NGPC Scorecard
Board Action (Accept/Disagree)
- Criterion 4 for the Community Priority Evaluation process takes into account 'community support and/or opposition to the application' in determining whether to award priority to a community application in a contention set.
- If a contention set is not resolved by the applicants or through a community priority evaluation then ICANN will utilize an auction as the objective method for resolving the contention.
See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13-en.htm and http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/new-gtld-resolution-annex-1-04jun13-en.pdf.