12. Early warning system [GAC Scorecard]

Scorecard:
Main page | Full scorecard | By rating | By subject -- see bottom of page.

Item Rating GAC advice Board notes
12.1 1B

Reconsider its objection to an “early warning” opportunity for governments to review potential new gTLD strings and to advise applicants whether their proposed strings would be considered controversial or to raise national sensitivities.

GAC comments made on this point

Suzanne Sene (United States) (1 Mar 11)
Netherlands (1 Mar 11)
Italy (1 Mar 11)

The principle of an early warning is already included in the Guidebook. The exact process needs to be discussed further – please see the Board’s notes above with respect to the GAC’s advice on “Procedures for the review of sensitive strings.”

Board comments made on this point

Betrand de la Chapelle (1 Mar 11)
Bruce Tonkin (1 Mar 11)
Betrand de la Chapelle (1 Mar 11)
Peter Dengate Thrush (1 Mar 11)
Chair summary (2 Mar 11)

Broken down by subject:
1. The objection procedures including the requirements for governments to pay fees | 2. Procedures for the review of sensitive strings | 3. Root Zone Scaling | 4. Market and Economic Impacts | 5. Registry – Registrar Separation | 6. Protection of Rights Owners and consumer protection issue | 7. Post-Delegation Disputes | 8. Use of geographic names | 9. Legal Recourse for Applications | 10. Providing opportunities for all stakeholders including those from developing countries | 11. Law enforcement due diligence recommendations | 12. The need for an early warning to applicants whether a proposed string would be considered controversial or to raise sensitivities (including geographical names)