Why the NGPC is addressing the issue? Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XI permit the GAC to “put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies.” The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC’s advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed. What is the proposal being considered? The NGPC is being asked to consider accepting a discrete grouping of the GAC advice as described in the attached NGPC Scorecard of 1As Regarding Non-Safeguard Advice in the GAC Beijing Communiqué (4 June 2013), which includes nine (9) items of non- safeguard advice from the Beijing Communiqué as listed in the GAC Register of Advice. These items are those for which the NGPC has a position that is consistent with the GAC’s advice. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? On 18 April 2013, ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice, http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr1... triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice- responses. The NGPC has considered the applicant responses in formulating its response to the GAC advice as applicable. To note, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13- en.htm. The public comment forum on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards is open through 4 June 2013. These comments will serve as important inputs to the NGPC’s future consideration of the other elements of GAC advice not being considered at this time in the attached scorecard. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? As part of the 21-day applicant response period, ICANN received 383 applicant response documents representing 745 unique applications. Twenty-three responses were withdrawn and eleven were submitted after the deadline. Applicants appear to generally support the spirit of the GAC advice. The responses expressed concerns that the advice was too broad in its reach and did not take into account individual applications. Some applicant responses expressed concern that some elements of the advice seem to circumvent the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, while others proposed that the NGPC reject specific elements of the advice. A review of the comments has been provided to the NGPC under separate cover. The complete set of applicant responses can be reviewed at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses. What significant materials did the Board review? As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed the following materials and documents:  GAC Beijing Communiqué: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf  Applicant responses to GAC advice: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses  Applicant Guidebook, Module 3: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12- en.pdf What factors did the Board find to be significant? The Beijing Communiqué generated significant interest from applicants and resulted in many comments. The NGPC considered the applicant comments, the GAC’s advice transmitted in the Beijing Communiqué, and the procedures established in the AGB. Are there positive or negative community impacts? The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the attached scorecard will assist with resolving the GAC advice in manner that permits the greatest number of new gTLD applications to continue to move forward as soon as possible. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? Approval of the proposed resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN’s Supporting Organizations or ICANN’s Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment? ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice on 18 April 2013 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr1.... This triggered the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1.