Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Advice Status
Board Advice Home | ALAC Advice Status | RSSAC Advice Status | SSAC Advice Status
Latest Advice to the ICANN Board
As of 31 October 2020
Advisory Committee | Advice Document |
---|---|
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) |
|
Board Advice Register Phases and Descriptions

Advice Items by Advisory Committee
Phase | GAC Consensus Advice | GAC Follow-up to Previous Advice |
---|---|---|
Phase 1 | Receive & Acknowledge | - | - |
Phase 2 | Understand | - | - |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider | 19 | - |
Phase 4 | Implement | 6 | - |
Phase 5 | Close | - | - |
Total Open Items by Advisory Committee | 25 | - |
Total Items Closed in Past 12 Months | 7 | 4 |
Note: "Issues of Importance" are not tracked in the table above but are listed below.
Open Advice Items
See also "Advice Status Reports" on Board Advice Home for PDF/Excel versions of the information below.
Advice Item | Phase | Action(s) Taken |
---|---|---|
ICANN66 Montreal Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board is unable to accept or reject this advice at this time and proposes to defer action until such time as the Board has concluded its consideration of the CCT recommendations and the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and the All Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group have delivered their policy recommendations to the GNSO Council. On 16 December 2019, ICANN org sent a letter to the GAC Chair providing some additional background and considerations relating to implementation of the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) recommendations. The CEO noted that the Board had referred policy-dependent recommendations contained in the CCT report to the community policy development process. The CEO also noted that the Board has put several such recommendations in pending status due to significant dependencies as well as various stated implementation and public interest concerns. On 17 December 2019, the Board discussed its questions on this advice on a call with the GAC regarding the Montreal communique. As discussed on this call, accepting the GAC's advice at this time appears to be in tension with the delegation of policy development authority under the ICANN Bylaws to the community through the bottom-up multistakeholder policy development process. In addition, until community-developed policy recommendations applicable to a subsequent round are developed, the Board has no basis to determine whether the GAC's concerns have been adequately addressed and, if not, no basis for entering into discussion with the GAC in an effort to identify a mutually acceptable solution as required by the Bylaws. The Board understands that the GAC provided additional clarifications to this advice in a letter on 22 January 2020. The Board will consider when and if further action is needed on this item after review of the GAC clarifications and after continued discussion with the GAC." Accordingly, this item will remain in Phase 3 pending further Board consideration. |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
ICANN49 Singapore Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
ICANN50 London Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 3 February 2017 the Board considered the Hyderabad Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
ICANN58 Copenhagen Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 12 June 2017 the Board considered the Copenhagen Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
ICANN58 Copenhagen Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 12 June 2017 the Board considered the Copenhagen Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
ICANN58 Copenhagen Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 12 June 2017 the Board considered the Copenhagen Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 23 September 2017 the Board considered the Johannesburg Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
|
ICANN60 Abu Dhabi Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 4 February 2018 the Board considered the Abu Dhabi Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
ICANN61 San Juan Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "as requested by the GAC in its 17 May 2018 letter to the ICANN Board Chair, the Board defers consideration of this advice pending further discussion with the GAC. |
ICANN61 San Juan Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "as requested by the GAC in its 17 May 2018 letter to the ICANN Board Chair, the Board defers consideration of this advice pending further discussion with the GAC." |
ICANN61 San Juan Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "as requested by the GAC in its 17 May 2018 letter to the ICANN Board Chair, the Board defers consideration of this advice pending further discussion with the GAC." |
ICANN61 San Juan Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "The Board thanks the GAC for the clarifications provided on 15 May 2018. The Board has asked the ICANN Organization to review the advice in light of these responses and to assess the feasibility of the request. The Board will defer action on this item at this time, and in due course will engage with the GAC should further clarifications be necessary before taking action on this advice." The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
ICANN62 Panama Communique |
Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider |
On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard: The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items). This advice item remains open for further Board consideration. |
ICANN61 San Juan Communique |
Phase 4 | Implement |
On 30 May 2018 the Board considered the San Juan Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: |
ICANN62 Panama Communique |
Phase 4 | Implement |
On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard: |
ICANN62 Panama Communique |
Phase 4 | Implement |
On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard: |
ICANN64 Kobe Communique |
Phase 4 | Implement |
On 15 May 2019 the Board adopted the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Kobe Communiqué: Actions and Updates (15 May 2019)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Kobe Communiqué and the San Juan Communiqué. The Board accepts this advice and will do what it can, within its authority and remit, and in light of other relevant considerations, to facilitate swift implementation of new registration data directory services policies, and if possible, send distinct parts to implementation as and when they are agreed. |
Phase 4 | Implement |
On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board notes that the GAC advice refers to a "current system" that requires "reasonable access" to non-public domain name registration. The Interim Registration Data Policy for gTLDs/Temporary Specification meets the "reasonable access" standard by requiring contracted parties to provide reasonable access to a requester who has a legitimate interest to data that is not outweighed by the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. The rules do not, however prescribe how the contracted providers comply with this requirement. The Interim Policy does not prescribe a "system" that the contracted parties must utilize in order to fulfill their access obligations, nor does it contain a contractually-mandated standard form for requests for third-party access. Accordingly, the Board accepts the GAC's advise to ensure that the requirements to provide reasonable access are operating effectively consistent with existing Consensus Policy by instructing the ICANN org to: – educate key stakeholder groups, including governments, that contracted parties are obligated to address requests for non-public data; and -actively make available links to registrar and registry information and points of contact on this topic. Although Org does not have authority to unilaterally obligate Contracted Parties to use a standard form, the Board directs ICANN org to collaborate with the Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups to develop a voluntary standard request form that can be used by stakeholders to request access based upon the current Consensus Policy and actively making that request form available." This item is currently in implementation. |
|
Phase 4 | Implement |
On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board notes that, currently, ICANN Contractual Compliance does not offer specific complaint forms for complaints related to obligations created under the Temporary Specification. ICANN Contractual Compliance is in the process of migrating to a new ticketing system ("NSp Compliance") that will allow it to easily create "smart forms" tailored to individual complaint types and to track and report granular data associated with each complaint type. NSp Compliance will include smart forms for Temp Spec-related complaints, including those concerning third-party access requests. Migration to NSp is expected to occur in 3Q2020. Accordingly, and in light of the above, the Board accepts the GAC's advice and instructs ICANN org as part of the roll out of NSp Compliance to publish clear instructions on the ICANN Compliance web page describing how to submit a complaint concerning a third-party access request. Additionally, the Board instructs ICANN org to compile and publish monthly metrics data related to third-party access complaints once such forms are available in the new ticketing system. The Board understands that the GAC provided additional clarifications to this advice in a letter on 22 January 2020. The Board will consider when and if further action is needed on this item after review of the GAC clarifications and after continued discussion with the GAC." This item is currently in implementation. |
Advice Items Closed in the Last 12 Months
Advice Item | Close Date | Action(s) Taken |
---|---|---|
14 October 2019 |
The ICANN Board received this advice via a letter on 20 August 2019 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-chalaby-2...). The Board responded to this advice via a letter on 14 October 2019 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-ismail-1...). |
|
26 January 2020 |
On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board acknowledges this follow-up advice item. The Board notes that the Public Comment period for the Implementation Plan for the GNSO Consensus Policy relating to the Protection of Certain Red Cross Names closed recently on 12 December 2019, and the public comment summary and analysis report has now been published: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-names-implementation-2019-10-23-en The Board understands that ICANN Org anticipates publishing the Policy prior to ICANN67, with an effective date to be no later than 1 August 2020. Regarding the topic of protection for certain acronyms of the two international organizations within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the Board had previously indicated its wish to resolve the question of second level protection for IGO acronyms in a holistic fashion, so as to allow for a comprehensive policy solution. In this regard, the Board is reviewing four approved policy recommendations from the GNSO concerning curative rights protections for IGOs. The Board is aware that a fifth recommendation has been referred to the GNSO's Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process and a separate Work Track in which IGOs and the GAC have been encouraged to participate will be established. Regarding the GAC's guidance on protections at the first level for certain Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers, the Board notes that any changes to the scope of protections that were provided under the 2012 New gTLD Program round should be the result of community-developed policy that is submitted to the Board for consideration." This item is considered complete as of the Board's consideration of 26 January 2020. |
|
ICANN66 Montreal Communique |
26 January 2020 |
On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board acknowledges discussions between the GAC and the GNSO about a specific work track concerning a curative mechanism to address the issue of protection of IGO identifiers. The Board understands, further, that the GNSO Council is voting on a charter for this work track in January 2020 and awaits the community's decision on this matter." This item is considered complete as of the Board's consideration of 26 January 2020. |
26 January 2020 |
On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board acknowledges the GAC's attention to this matter and interest in continuing the implementation work of the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) policy recommendations." This item is considered complete as of the Board's consideration of 26 January 2020. |
|
ICANN49 Singapore Communique §4.c. Specific Strings – .ram and .indians (27 Mar 2014) |
8 June 2020 | The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard: In response to the GAC's advice in the Durban Communiqué concerning .RAM and .INDIANS, on 10 September 2013, the NGPC adopted an iteration of the Scorecard (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1...) taking note of the concerns expressed in the GAC's advice. a) With respect to .RAM, in the 14 May 2014 iteration of the Scorecard (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1...), the NGPC took note of the concerns expressed in the GAC's Singapore advice that "the application for .ram is a matter of extreme sensitivity for the Government of India on political and religious considerations." The NGPC also noted the applicant response to the Board from Chrysler Group LLC ("Chrysler") concerning this advice, in which Chrysler indicated that it "remains hopeful that an accommodation can be reached that addresses the Government's concerns, yet allows Chrysler to register and operate .RAM as a restricted, exclusively-controlled gTLD. Chrysler representatives are willing to meet with the Government of India to discuss the resolution of this matter at any time that is convenient for the Government." At this time, the NGPC continues to deliberate on this item of GAC advice and encourages the impacted parties to continue the noted discussions. b) With respect to .INDIANS, the NGPC notes that on 26 August 2014, the applicant for .INDIANS notified ICANN that it was withdrawing its application from the New gTLD Program. The applicant for .RAM withdrew its application in October 2019. The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed. |
ICANN62 Panama Communique §2.a.I. Protection of IGO Identifiers (28 Jun 2018) |
8 June 2020 | On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard: The Board will continue to maintain current temporary protections of IGO acronyms pending resolution of this issue. The acronyms of the IGO identified on the "IGO List" have been protected by reservation in New gTLDs based on the direction of the Board from July 2013. This was implemented through the update to the reserved names list: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml#IGOs-2. The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed. |
ICANN63 Barcelona Communique §1.a.III. Two-Character Country Codes at the Second Level (25 Oct 2018) |
8 June 2020 | On 27 January 2019 the Board considered the Barcelona Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: The Board acknowledges that some GAC members have expressed concerns regarding the process for release of two-character labels at the second-level and that the GAC has issued advice directing the ICANN org to engage with concerned governments. The Board notes that the ICANN org conducted telephonic conversations with concerned governments in May 2017 explaining the rationale and development of the framework adopted by the 8 November 2016 Board resolution. Additionally, the ICANN Board and org engaged in discussions with the GAC at the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation (BGRI) meetings at ICANN61, ICANN62 and ICANN63. The adopted Measures also urged registry operators to engage with the relevant GAC members when a risk is identified in order to come to an agreement on how to manage it or to have a third-party assessment of the situation if the name in question was already registered, advice which the GAC provided in its Helsinki Communiqué. The Board notes that the ICANN org is developing a dedicated webpage for the GAC members to easily track the registration of two-character domain names that correspond with a specific country code and which enables GAC members to submit a request for ICANN compliance action in the event of a perceived misuse. This service will aggregate two-character second level domains automatically to a table on the GAC site, which can also be downloaded for offline analysis by GAC members. The service will run daily after all root zone files are updated, aggregating all new two-character second-level domain registrations and displaying to GAC Members. The ICANN org also describes this engagement and these tools in in its memo and Historical Overview. Although the Board believes that the advice to engage with concerned governments to explain the process and rationale has been fully implemented, the Board directs the ICANN President and CEO to continue to develop the tools as noted above to allow concerned GAC members to track two-character registrations. The Board and the GAC discussed the development of the tool during the BGIG meeting at ICANN65 in Marrakech. The tool was subject to further discussion during ICANN66 in Montreal. The ICANN organization will be available to answer questions regarding the tool on an ongoing basis. The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed. |
ICANN64 Kobe Communique §1.a.I. WHOIS and Data Protection Legislation (14 Mar 2019) |
8 June 2020 | On 15 May 2019 the Board adopted the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Kobe Communiqué: Actions and Updates (15 May 2019)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Kobe Communiqué and the San Juan Communiqué. The Board acknowledges this advice and while it cannot guarantee the end result, because the EPDP is a community procedure that determines its own processes, the Board does support the request that the second phase of this policy development institute concrete milestones and progress reports. The Board shall convey the request via its Liaisons to the EPDP and via its communications with the GNSO Council. The Board notes that ICANN org is also providing support to the EPDP Phase 2 to support its work. The EPDP Team has reported on its project milestones regularly, including regular updates to the GNSO Council (the body overseeing the policy development) as well as community updates via pre-ICANN webinars and cross-community sessions at ICANN meetings. For more information on the EPDP Team's workplan, please refer to the following page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105388008. The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed. |
ICANN64 Kobe Communique §1.a.II. WHOIS and Data Protection Legislation (14 Mar 2019) |
8 June 2020 | On 15 May 2019 the Board adopted the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Kobe Communiqué: Actions and Updates (15 May 2019)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Kobe Communiqué and the San Juan Communiqué. The Board acknowledges this advice and while it cannot guarantee the end result, because the EPDP is a community procedure that determines its own processes, the Board does support the request that the second phase of this policy development institute concrete milestones and progress reports. The Board shall convey the request via its Liaisons to the EPDP and via its communications with the GNSO Council. The Board notes that ICANN org is also providing support to the EPDP Phase 2 to support its work. The EPDP Team constructed a work plan, where it clearly defined all issues to be handled in Phase 2, and the Team classified all in-scope topics as Priority 1 and Priority 2. Since the GNSO Council's approval of its work plan, the EPDP Team has been making progress and is currently on-target to meet its first milestone of publishing its Initial Report. For more information on the EPDP Team's workplan, please refer to the following page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105388008. The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed. |
ICANN66 Montreal Communique §2.a.i. Domain Name Registration Directory Service and Data Protection – Phase 1 of the EPDP (6 Nov 2019) |
8 June 2020 | On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard: "The Board accepts this advice. The Board agrees that a realistic schedule for the implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 work plan is a prudent component of the implementation plan. The Board notes the ICANN org sent a letter to the GAC chair on 6 January 2020 with a status update as requested by the GAC. In that letter the Org cites they are applying the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) and summarizes both this process and progress to date. Additionally the letter notes that the implementation plan that will be published for public comment will include an implementation timeline. The Board will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 work." The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed. |