Both GAC Member Early Warnings and GAC Consensus Advice are mechanisms used by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in the ICANN new gTLD process to raise public policy concerns regarding specific applications.
They differ significantly in their source, purpose, and impact on the application's fate.
Source: Issued by individual GAC members (one or more governments); it does not require consensus from the full GAC.
Purpose: To signal to the applicant that the applied-for gTLD string is regarded as potentially sensitive or problematic by a specific government or governments, often due to national law, regulatory concerns (like finance or health), or public order issues.
Impact: It is non-binding and does not directly stop the application.
It gives the applicant an early opportunity to address the concerns, potentially through amending the application, proposing changes to their registry policies, or withdrawing the application for an 80% refund of the application fee (a key incentive to withdraw).
It is a strong indicator that the application may be subject to a formal GAC Consensus Advice or an Objection later in the process.
Source: Issued by the full GAC and requires a consensus among its members.
Purpose: To formally advise the ICANN Board on public policy issues related to an application, often resulting from unresolved concerns raised during the Early Warning phase or during the GAC's own review.
Impact: It carries significant weight and creates a strong presumption that the application should not be approved or should proceed only with specific conditions (remediation).
If the ICANN Board chooses to take an action inconsistent with GAC Consensus Advice, the Board must publicly articulate the reasons for its decision and attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. Historically, the ICANN Board has consistently followed GAC Consensus Advice to reject or place conditions on an application.
The advice must be clearly enunciated, actionable, and accompanied by a rationale.
The mechanisms for the next gTLD round are being refined through the Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (SubPro), but the fundamental roles of the Early Warning (precursor, non-binding) and Consensus Advice (binding on the Board, subject to appeal) are expected to remain the same.
Would you like to know about the types of Public Interest Commitments (PICs) an applicant might offer to resolve GAC concerns?
They differ significantly in their source, purpose, and impact on the application's fate.
⚠️ GAC Member Early Warnings
An Early Warning is a non-binding notice provided by one or more individual GAC members (representing a national government) to an applicant. Its main goal is to provide an early caution about potential issues.Source: Issued by individual GAC members (one or more governments); it does not require consensus from the full GAC.
Purpose: To signal to the applicant that the applied-for gTLD string is regarded as potentially sensitive or problematic by a specific government or governments, often due to national law, regulatory concerns (like finance or health), or public order issues.
Impact: It is non-binding and does not directly stop the application.
It gives the applicant an early opportunity to address the concerns, potentially through amending the application, proposing changes to their registry policies, or withdrawing the application for an 80% refund of the application fee (a key incentive to withdraw).
It is a strong indicator that the application may be subject to a formal GAC Consensus Advice or an Objection later in the process.
⚖️ GAC Consensus Advice
GAC Consensus Advice is a formal, collective recommendation from the Governmental Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board of Directors, reflecting the consensus position of the governments represented on the GAC.Source: Issued by the full GAC and requires a consensus among its members.
Purpose: To formally advise the ICANN Board on public policy issues related to an application, often resulting from unresolved concerns raised during the Early Warning phase or during the GAC's own review.
Impact: It carries significant weight and creates a strong presumption that the application should not be approved or should proceed only with specific conditions (remediation).
If the ICANN Board chooses to take an action inconsistent with GAC Consensus Advice, the Board must publicly articulate the reasons for its decision and attempt to find a mutually acceptable solution with the GAC. Historically, the ICANN Board has consistently followed GAC Consensus Advice to reject or place conditions on an application.
The advice must be clearly enunciated, actionable, and accompanied by a rationale.
The mechanisms for the next gTLD round are being refined through the Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (SubPro), but the fundamental roles of the Early Warning (precursor, non-binding) and Consensus Advice (binding on the Board, subject to appeal) are expected to remain the same.
Would you like to know about the types of Public Interest Commitments (PICs) an applicant might offer to resolve GAC concerns?
Comments
Post a Comment
Hello, everything goes through moderation so...no need to spam. For new gTLD Consulting services, please contact Jovenet Consulting. Thank you.