ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[bc-gnso] GAC scorecard and quick summary

  • To: "bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx" <bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [bc-gnso] GAC scorecard and quick summary
  • From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:23:33 +0000

In preparation for their meeting with the ICANN Board on Monday, the GAC just 
published their 'scorecard' on ICANN's new gTLD plans.

Below I provide some summary points about this GAC 'Advice'.  But first, read 
the GAC's intro for their scorecard:

The scorecard below represents the considered efforts of the GAC to distil the 
key elements of consensus advice regarding the introduction of new gTLDs it has 
been providing the ICANN Board since March, 2007. As the GAC noted in its 
Cartagena Communique, the GAC's initial advice, presented in the form of 
Principles, pre-dated both the completion of the GNSO's Recommendations on new 
gTLDs and the ICANN Board's subsequent adoption of those Recommendations in 
June, 2008.

The GAC has sought from the outset of its deliberations regarding the public 
policy aspects related to the introduction of new gTLDs to contribute to the 
bottom-up, consensus-based policy development process within ICANN. As per the 
ICANN Bylaws, the GAC provides advice directly to the ICANN Board. Once the GAC 
forwards its advice to the ICANN Board, the GAC understands that it is within 
the ICANN Board's remit to instruct ICANN staff to take the GAC's advice into 
account in the development of the implementation plan for the introduction of 
new gTLDs.

The GAC therefore welcomes the opportunity presented by the ICANN Board's 
agreement to hold a meeting with the GAC to review its longstanding and 
outstanding concerns regarding ICANN's proposed implementation plan for the 
introduction of new gTLDs. From the GAC's perspective, the Brussels meetings 
are not only an appropriate but a critical next step in ensuring the 
perspectives of governments are fully taken into account in the ICANN private 
sector-led, multi-stakeholder model that ICANN represents.

I believe the government reps in the GAC really do appreciate private sector 
role in building internet infrastructure and creating nearly all compelling 
content and commerce.   And I think they are gradually warming to the 
mulit-stakeholeder model.   But it takes two to Tango, so ICANN needs to get up 
and dance, too.

And if you dislike the idea of showing respect for the GAC, you will positively 
hate the idea of letting the UN-ITU run things.  That is a very real threat — 
especially if the new gTLD round lets governments say, "I told you this was 
going to happen".    Just ask Marilyn and others  who are 'observing' the UN 
debating the future of internet governance.

GAC Advice:

1.1:  GAC may object to a string during initial evaluation.   ICANN board can 
disregard GAC advice, but they must provide an explanation.

1.2: Individual governments (not the entire GAC) may object to Community-based 
applications and they don't want to pay a fee to file an objection.  Makes it 
that much harder to get a community-based TLD.

3: GAC is concerned about ICANN capacity and root zone stability with 200-300 
simultaneous applications.  Makes case for a limited first batch of 300.

4: gTLD applicants must describe benefits of their TLD and explain how they 
will mitigate costs to registrants and consumers.

5: Restrict cross-ownership between registrars and registries where ICANN 
determines that the TLD is likely to obtain market power.

6.1:  TM Clearinghouse should accept any TM recognized in country where 
registry is based. Both Sunrise and TM Claims should be mandatory, and include 
variations on the TM term.  And…  the TM clearinghouse [and services?] should 
continue after launch.

6.2 URS should be faster, simpler, and be based on lower standard of proof.

6.3: post-delegation dispute resolution should require a lower standard of 
proof, and be simpler to pursue.

6.4: national consumer protection authorities want ICANN to provide  adequate 
compliance resources.

7: TLD contracts must require registry operator to comply with any legally 
binding decisions of governments.

8: For community-based applications, Allow governments to protect their legal 
interest in geographical names.

9: ICANN should seek legal advice where national competition authorities might 
object to a TLD.

10: Make it cheaper and easier for new gTLD applicants from developing 
countries.  (and for Applications in languages whose presence on the web is 
limited )

11: Law enforcement wants publicly available and accurate WHOIS, deeper vetting 
of applicants, and higher weight to applicants offering highest level of 

12: ICANN should give 'early warning' to applicants if governments object to 
the string.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy