Ariel cc as above

 

Good morning to you and colleagues.  Thanks to Anne for initiating this dialogue. 

 

From what I recall back in 2012 Round the GAC Early Warnings were, in the main, a pre-cursor to GAC advice on the “names” identified of concern.  You are of course right that an “early warning” has no “regulatory” effect but an effected applicant, one might think, would be perhaps wise to assess how the concern could be overcome by an RVC and even offer it ahead of GAC advice. 

 

Best

 

Nigel

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Anne,

 

To our understanding, the GAC Advice and GAC Early Warning have significantly different ‘weight’, as the Board is required to consider a GAC Advice and act on it accordingly, but not for a GAC Early Warning (which can be issued by one or more GAC members, not by the entire GAC).

 

For example, if a GAC Early Warning flags certain concerns with an application, the applicant may actually do nothing, knowing the risk of a potential GAC Advice to the Board (which may or may not happen). The applicant has the option to propose an RVC after receiving the GAC Early Warning in order to reduce the risk, but in general the approval or rejection of such an RVC has no bearing on whether the application is able to proceed.

 

However, in the event the GAC, in its advice, advises the Board that an application cannot proceed unless agreement is reached on a proposed RVC that is approved by ICANN, then the applicant cannot ‘ignore’ the GAC Advice and the approval/rejection of a proposed RVC in response to such a GAC Advice will have bearing on the fate of the application. This is further elaborated in Section 3.4 of the “Community Input and Dispute Resolution” topic.

 

I hope I answered your question, Anne?

 

Best,

Ariel