1. New gTLDs . GAC Objections to Specific Applications i. The GAC Advises the ICANN Board that: i. The GAC has reached consensus on GAC Objection Advice according to Module 3.1 part I of the Applicant Guidebook on the following applications: 1. The application for .africa (Application number 1--1165--42560) 2. The application for .gcc (application number: 1--1936--2101) ii. With regard to Module 3.1 part II of the Applicant Guidebook4: 1. The GAC recognizes that Religious terms are sensitive issues. Some GAC members have raised sensitivities on the applications that relate to Islamic terms, specifically .islam and .halal. The GAC members concerned have noted that the applications for .islam and .halal lack community involvement and support. It is the view of these GAC membersthat these applications should not proceed. b. Safeguard Advice for New gTLDs To reinforce existing processes for raising and addressing concerns the GAC isproviding safeguard advice to apply to broad categories of strings (see Annex I). c. Strings for Further GAC Consideration In addition to this safeguard advice, that GAC has identified certain gTLD strings where further GAC consideration may be warranted, including at the GAC meetings to be held in Durban. i. Consequently, the GAC advises the ICANNBoard to: not proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with the following strings : .shenzhen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .date, .spa, . yun,.thai, .zulu, .wine, .vin 2 To track the history and progress of GAC Advice to the Board, please visit the GAC Advice Online Register available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Recent+Meetings 3 Module 3.1: “The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed. This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved. 4 Module 3.1: “The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application “dot--example.” The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision. 3 d. The GAC requests: i. a written briefing about the ability of anapplicant to change the string applied for in order to address concerns raised by a GAC Member and to identify a mutually acceptable solution. e. Community Support for Applications The GACadvises the Board: i. 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. f. 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. g. Protections for Intergovernmental Organisations The GAC stresses that the IGOs perform an important global public mission with public funds, they are the creations of government under international law, and their names and acronyms warrant special protection in an expanded DNS. Such protection, which the GAC has previously advised, should be a priority. This recognizes that IGOs are in an objectively different category to other rights holders, warranting special protection by ICANN in the DNS, while also preserving sufficient flexibility for workable implementation. The GAC is mindful of outstanding implementation issues and commits to actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward. Pending the resolution of these implementation issues, the GAC reiterates its advice to the ICANN Board that: i. appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch. 2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Consistent with previous communications to the ICANN Board a. the GAC advises the ICANN Board that: i. the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreementshould be finalized before any new gTLD contracts are approved. The GAC also strongly supports the amendment to the new gTLD registry agreement that would require new gTLD registry operators to use only those registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA. The GAC appreciates the improvements to the RAA that incorporate the 2009 GAC--Law Enforcement Recommendations. The GAC is also pleased with the progress on providing verification and improving accuracy of registrant data and supports continuing efforts to identify preventative mechanisms that help deter criminal or other illegal activity. Furthermore the GAC urges all stakeholders to accelerate the implementation of accreditation programs for privacy and proxy services for WHOIS. 3. WHOIS The GAC urges the ICANN Board to: a. ensure that the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services, approved in 2007, are duly taken into account by the recently established Directory Services Expert Working Group. The GAC stands ready to respond to any questions with regard to the GAC Principles. The GAC also expects its views to be incorporated into whatever subsequent policy development process might be initiated once the Expert Working Group concludes its efforts. 4. International Olympic Committee and Red Cross /Red Crescent Consistent with its previous communications, the GAC advises the ICANN Board to: a. amend the provisions in the new gTLD Registry Agreement pertaining to the IOC/RCRC names to confirm that the protections will be made permanent prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
