How the Governmental Advisory Committee Influences TLD Policy

Among the intricate mechanisms of global internet governance, the role of national governments remains one of the most complex and often misunderstood elements. While the internet was built on principles of open collaboration and technical autonomy, governments have always maintained a keen interest in its infrastructure, especially as it pertains to issues of sovereignty, public policy, consumer protection, and national security. Within the framework of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the primary venue through which governments exert influence is the Governmental Advisory Committee, commonly known as the GAC. This committee plays a unique and critical role in shaping policies related to top-level domains (TLDs), and its influence is both direct and indirect, operating through formal advice, informal diplomacy, and political signaling.

The GAC is composed of representatives from national governments and distinct economies, along with observers from international intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations, the European Commission, and the International Telecommunication Union. Its membership spans well over 150 entities, representing a wide array of legal traditions, regulatory priorities, and geopolitical perspectives. While ICANN is fundamentally a multistakeholder organization where non-governmental actors such as businesses, technical experts, and civil society have formal roles in policy development, the GAC exists specifically to ensure that public policy concerns are not sidelined in the pursuit of technical or commercial objectives.

One of the GAC’s core functions is to issue formal advice to the ICANN Board of Directors on matters that touch upon public policy, particularly where national laws or international agreements might be implicated. This advice is not binding, but it carries considerable weight. According to ICANN’s bylaws, if the Board rejects GAC advice, it must provide a written explanation and engage in a formal consultation process with the GAC to seek resolution. This requirement gives the GAC substantial leverage, allowing governments to shape the direction of policy outcomes without needing to control the actual drafting process.

The influence of the GAC is most visible during major policy decisions involving the Domain Name System, especially in the context of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) launches. During the rollout of ICANN’s new gTLD program in 2012, the GAC played a decisive role by issuing a set of safeguard advice for sensitive strings and controversial applications. The committee recommended that certain strings, such as those related to regulated industries like .bank or .pharmacy, be subject to heightened scrutiny and additional public interest commitments. It also issued what became known as GAC Early Warnings, informal signals sent to applicants indicating that one or more governments had concerns about a proposed TLD. These early warnings were instrumental in prompting applicants to withdraw or amend their proposals before they reached more advanced stages of evaluation.

Perhaps the most emblematic example of GAC influence was the protracted dispute over the .amazon string. The Amazon corporation applied for the TLD, but several South American countries, led by Brazil and Peru, objected on the grounds that the term Amazon has significant geographic and cultural meaning beyond its commercial brand usage. The GAC issued consensus advice opposing the delegation of .amazon to the company without agreement from the affected countries. ICANN initially sided with the GAC’s position, delaying the delegation for years. Only after extended negotiations and the intervention of independent review processes was a compromise reached, illustrating both the power and the limitations of GAC advice. The case underscored how governments can use the GAC not only as a policy channel but as a political forum for expressing regional and national interests on the global stage.

Beyond individual cases, the GAC influences TLD policy through its ongoing participation in ICANN’s policy development processes, though it does not initiate policy proposals in the same way as other supporting organizations. Instead, it monitors proceedings, intervenes at key moments, and provides commentary on draft policies, especially where international law, cultural sensitivities, or user protections are implicated. The GAC often focuses on issues such as the protection of geographic names, human rights implications of DNS practices, DNS abuse and mitigation, data privacy, and intellectual property enforcement. These concerns often intersect with national legislation and international treaties, areas where governments naturally possess both expertise and legal obligations that other stakeholder groups may lack.

While the GAC’s advisory role is central to its formal authority, its informal influence can be just as significant. GAC members are typically well-connected policymakers who can shape opinion and negotiation dynamics through bilateral meetings, hallway diplomacy, and closed-door consultations during ICANN’s public meetings. These meetings, held three times annually in rotating global locations, provide an important setting for governments to align their positions and coordinate messages, particularly in anticipation of contentious policy votes or public comment periods.

The presence of the GAC within ICANN has not been without controversy. Critics have periodically expressed concern that government influence could erode the bottom-up, consensus-based model that ICANN was designed to uphold. Others have noted that the GAC’s processes are less transparent than those of other ICANN bodies, with fewer open deliberations and limited public documentation of internal debates. Some governments, especially those with more authoritarian leanings, have been accused of using the GAC to push for more centralized control over internet infrastructure under the guise of national security or cultural preservation. At the same time, many defenders of the multistakeholder model argue that the GAC provides a vital counterbalance, ensuring that commercial and technical interests do not overwhelm broader public considerations.

Over the years, the GAC has also evolved internally. It has developed clearer operational procedures, improved its coordination with other ICANN bodies, and increased efforts to include developing countries in its work. Initiatives such as capacity-building workshops and regional outreach have helped ensure that GAC advice reflects a wider diversity of views, not merely the agendas of dominant geopolitical powers. Nevertheless, balancing government influence with the integrity of ICANN’s multistakeholder model remains an ongoing challenge, especially as the internet becomes more deeply entangled with issues of geopolitics, surveillance, misinformation, and cross-border regulation.

The GAC stands as one of the most powerful yet delicately balanced components within ICANN’s complex governance structure. It serves as a bridge between global internet infrastructure and national public policy, a platform where sovereign interests intersect with a transnational, technically driven regime. Its influence on TLD policy is not always overt, but it is persistent, strategic, and highly consequential. Understanding the GAC’s role is essential for grasping how the internet’s naming system remains both globally coordinated and politically responsive, a rare feat in an age of increasing digital fragmentation.

Among the intricate mechanisms of global internet governance, the role of national governments remains one of the most complex and often misunderstood elements. While the internet was built on principles of open collaboration and technical autonomy, governments have always maintained a keen interest in its infrastructure, especially as it pertains to issues of sovereignty, public…