AFAIK what was attached on Erick's email is not a GAC Communique ...

-J


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 2:41 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> On 07/04/2013, at 1:40 PM, Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Erick,
> >
> > declarations like this are worth not much in this process, what really
> counts is serious studies and facts showing how the approval of such
> applications will have a negative effect to the communities involved and
> the Internet in general.
> >
> > The declaration of this, or that, here or there, being mindful,
> recognizing, or citing organizations and meetings completely alien to ICANN
> are totally useless, yes they help to bring up the point but they do not
> provide a strong argument against the applications, bureaucratic government
> verbiage is not part of the new gTLD process.Try again ...
>
>         Jorge, perhaps you have a different impression of the GACs role
> than I do.
>         The GACs role is in part to represent government policy, including
> that made in other forums, such as Ministerial meetings, within ICANN. Or
> to put it another way, the GAC ensures that bureaucratic government
> verbiage is relevant to the new gTLD process (so supplement the
> bureaucratic multi-stakeholder verbiage, which seems to be in more than
> adequate supply).
>
> >
> > The problem with these applications are not the strings but what
> process/criteria will be used to evaluate applications for exclusive use
> that include strings that represent regions that are not clearly defined or
> listed on any international standards, since this will set a precedent for
> future applications.
>
>         And it appears that we have at least one answer in this round -
> where cross-government geographic concerns do not fall within the remit of
> a single government and otherwise fall through the geographic nomenclature
> rules in the Applicant Guidebook, but that nevertheless cause concern to
> governments, they can be brought up through the Independent Objector, who
> has objected to these applications this time around.
>
>         Regards
>                 David
>
>