<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>GAC Communique is <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-06-24-en">
here</a>. Highlights below:</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Country and Territory Names at the Second Level</b></div>
<div>The GAC is continuing to develop a database of country requirements for notification of requests for release of country/territory names at the second level in new gTLDs (reserved according to the application rules for new gTLDs), with options for governments
to state that they do not object to release and abstain from notifications for such requests. This should be finalised by the end of July 2015 and published on the GAC website.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><b>CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal </b></div>
<div>GAC states support for its submission to the ICG, without prejudice to comments made publicly by individual delegations. GAC notes provisions of paragraph 106 of the CWG Final Proposal which states that the CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent
and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated
by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this CWG-Stewardship proposal will require revision.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><b>Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Acountability (CCWG- Accountability)</b></div>
<div>GAC is continuing to clarify issues of concern to GAC members with regard to the evolving proposals of the CCWG-Accountability. These will be conveyed to the CCWG face-to-face meeting to be held on 17-18 July 2015.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>gTLD Safeguards</b></div>
<div>GAC appreciates the efforts of the Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) to respond to GAC’s Safeguard advice. However, despite guidance provided by GAC, contracts with the new gTLD Applicants have continued without the GAC recommended provisions requiring
verification of credentials for domains in highly regulated sectors.</div>
<div>Nonetheless, the GAC notes that an increasing number of Registries and Applicants for strings related to highly regulated sectors have, consistent with GAC advice, voluntarily committed to undertaking the verification and validation of credentials. These
Applicants and Registries demonstrate that satisfactory solutions can be achieved based on the GAC advice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div>GAC recommends that the NGPC create a list of commended public interest commitment (PIC) examples related to verification and validation of credentials for domains in highly regulated sectors to serve as a model. These public interest commitments could
demonstrate a best practice for other gTLD registry operators. For example the PIC for .bank appears to have taken steps to provide confidence to consumers that they can rely on the bona fide of the Registrants listed. Relevant stakeholders should be identified
and encouraged to devise a set of PICs that work well for the protection of public interests in each of the new gTLDs related to highly regulated sectors.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The GAC additionally recommends: that the ICANN community creates a harmonised methodology to assess the number of abusive domain names within the assessment of the new gTLD program. It would be useful to develop a straightforward scorecard on all elements
of GAC Safeguard advice since the Beijing 2013 GAC Communiqué to clarify what elements of GAC advice have been implemented, what remains, and what has not been accepted for Implementation. In any instances of complete or partial rejection of the Advice, the
GAC urges the NGPC to clarify the milestones intended to be followed in order to seek a potentially “mutually acceptable solution” as mandated by ICANN’s Bylaws.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px; border:none; padding:0px;">
<div><b> </b></div>
</blockquote>
<div><b>Community Priority Evaluation</b></div>
<div>GAC continues to review the community application process for new gTLDs, noting that it does not appear to have met applicant expectations. </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>