Welcome to the GAC website! Effective 18 December 2018, this site is the GAC’s sole web resource for news and information about GAC activities. If you have difficulty finding any current or past GAC information, please email gac-staff@icann.org.

GAC Advice

The GAC provides advice to the ICANN Board on policy matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN’s policies and various laws, international agreements and public policy objectives. GAC Advice is communicated to the ICANN Board through either a Communique or a formal piece of Correspondence. This area of the website provides you with full access to both types of GAC Advice as well as the comprehensive historical list of GAC advice provided to the Board and links connecting that advice to its outcome using the ICANN Board Advice Registry tool.

 

GAC Advice

Reference No. :

2013-04-11-PluralStrings

First Delivered via :

N/A

Consenus:

Consensus met

2013-04-11-PluralStrings

Communication

a. Singular and plural versions of the same string as a TLD

The GAC believes that singular and plural versions of the string as a TLD could lead to potential consumer confusion.

Therefore the GAC advises the ICANN Board to:

i. Reconsider its decision to allow singular and plural versions of the same strings.

GAC Acknowledgement of Register Entry

GAC: 2 May 2013

Board: 9 May 2013

Next Steps/Required Action

Board Action:

ItemResp.StartCompl.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 AdviceNGPC Response

The GAC believes that singular and plural versions of the string as a TLD could lead to potential consumer confusion.Therefore the GAC advises the ICANN Board to: Reconsider its decision to allow singular and plural versions of the same strings.

1A

The NGPC accepts this advice and will consider whether to allow singular and plural versions of the same string.

Responsible Party

Board/Staff

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)

Accept

  • After careful consideration of the issues, review of the comments raised by the community, the process documents of the expert review panels, and deliberations by the NGPC, the NGPC determined that no changes to the ABG are needed to address potential consumer confusion specifically resulting from allowing singular and plural versions of the same strings.
  • The NGPC considered several significant factors during its deliberations about whether to allow singular and plural version of the same strings. The NGPC had to balance the competing interests of each factor to arrive at a decision.
  • See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.d.