Bureaucrats, staff, Administrators
8,157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: − ==GAC Participation at ICANN==+ − ===ICANN 43, GAC-GNSO Joint Meeting=== − In March, 2012, the GAC had a joint meeting with the [[GNSO]] regarding the plan to extend special domain name protections for the Red Cross and the International Olympic Committee, the ongoing amendment negotiations to the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]], and the Human Rights Council discussion on the freedom of expression over the internet. The GAC informed the GNSO that it supports the extension of domain name protections for the Red Cross and the Olympics but that it is not a consensus view. The Committee supported the issue on freedom of expression over the internet and acknowledge the progress of the RAA and requested a timelime.<ref>[http://news.dot-nxt.com/icann43/sun/gnso-gac GAC-GNSO Joint Meeting]</ref> − − ===ICANN 44=== − In September, 2012, a working group related to the [[European Commission]] sent a letter to [[ICANN]] warning that its proposed additions to the [[RAA|Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] would infringe on European Privacy laws. The issues in question are the proposals to make registrars retain data about their customers for up to two years after registration, and by the idea that registrars should re-verify contact data every year. These proposals were discussed and supported by the GAC and the law enforcement voices within ICANN at [[ICANN 44]] in Prague. This is potentially conflicting given that the GAC supported these measures and this pan-European body is coming down against it.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10606-european-privacy-watchdog-says-icanns-whois-demands-are-unlawful European Privacy Watchdog Says ICANNs WhoisDemands Are Unlawful, DomainIncite.com]</ref> − − ===ICANN 45=== − As opposed to holding its general meetings with other supporting organizations and advisory committees within ICANN, the GAC has created more personal meeting time. This was done in an attempt to coordinate all of its GAC Early Warnings related to ICANN's [[New gTLD Program|gTLD expansion program]]. They will hold a meeting with the heads of other advisory bodies rather than the entire groups.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/10580-governments-to-focus-on-new-gtlds-during-icanns-new-eight-day-toronto-meeting Governments to Focus on new gTLDs During ICANNs New Eight Day Toronto Meeting, 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=== Line 101:
Line 89: − − ===ICANN 50 London=== − ''Main article: [[ICANN 50 - London]]'' − − The GAC drafts a report to the ICANN board during each ICANN meeting, titled a GAC Communique, in which they give advice to the board on decisions involving policy and implementation. Highlights from the London Communiqué include: − − * The GAC advises the Board regarding the [[.africa]] string, saying it would like to see an expedited process, especially once the [[Independent Review Panel]] comes to a decision regarding the two applicants for the string. They reaffirm their decision that [[DotConnectAfrica]]'s application should not proceed. − * The GAC mentioned the controversy surrounding [[.wine]] and [[.vin]], where some European GAC representatives strongly felt that the applications for these strings should not proceed without proper safeguards for geographic names at the second level. However, the GAC was unable to reach consensus advice regarding this issue and thus did not relay any formal advice to the Board. − * The GAC requested safeguards in the New gTLDs for IGO (Inter-Governmental Organization) names at the second level, and specifically related such advice for names relating to Red Cross and Red Crescent.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-25jun14-en.pdf GAC London Communiqué] (PDF) ''ICANN.org''; Retrieved 10 July 2014</ref>
Created branch articles from content found here.
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 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>
==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.
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>
==References==
==References==