ICANN Resolutions » GAC Advice: Buenos Aires Communiqué (June 2015)

Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.

GAC Advice: Buenos Aires Communiqué (June 2015)

Resolution of the New gTLD Program Committee
Meeting Date: 
周日, 18 十月 2015
Resolution Number: 
Resolution Text: 

Resolved (2015.10.18.NG02), the NGPC adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Buenos Aires Communiqué 24 June 2015: Actions and Updates (18 October 2015)", attached as Annex 1 [PDF, 264 KB] to the resolution, in response to items of GAC advice in the Buenos Aires Communiqué concerning new gTLDs.

Rationale for Resolution: 

Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws 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 in its Buenos Aires Communiqué 24 June 2015. 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.

The NGPC has previously addressed items of the GAC's advice concerning new gTLDs issued in Communiqués from Beijing (April 2013), Durban (July 2013), Buenos Aires (November 2013), Singapore (March 2014), London (June 2014), Los Angeles (October 2014), and Singapore (February 2015). The NGPC is taking action to address the new advice from the GAC in the Buenos Aires Communiqué as described in scorecard dated 18 October 2015.

In adopting its response to the GAC advice in the Buenos Aires Communiqué, the NGPC reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

* GAC Beijing Communiqué [PDF, 238 KB] (April 2013); GAC Durban Communiqué [PDF, 103 KB] (July 2013); GAC Buenos Aires Communiqué [PDF, 97 KB] (November 2013); GAC Singapore Communiqué [PDF, 147 KB] (as amended) (March 2014); GAC London Communiqué [PDF, 138 KB] (June 2014); GAC Los Angeles Communiqué [PDF, 127 KB] (October 2014); GAC Singapore Communiqué [PDF, 113 KB] (February 2015); GAC Buenos Aires Communiqué [PDF, 106 KB] (June 2015)

* Applicant responses to GAC advice: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/

* Applicant Guidebook, Module 3: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12... [PDF, 260 KB]

* Letter [PDF, 473 KB] from the GNSO dated 29 July 2015 regarding GNSO Council's Review of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué

The NGPC also considered the procedures established in the Applicant Guidebook and the ICANN Bylaws concerning the Board's consideration of advice from the GAC, in addition to the 26 September 2015 letter [PDF, 183 KB] from the GAC clarifying certain terminology used in the Buenos Aires Communiqué. The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the scorecard will have a positive impact on the community because it will assist with resolving the GAC advice concerning the New gTLD Program.

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.