Folks:
The edited version of the draft is at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the current version states it does not take a position on the amazon and patagonia applications. (Remember we are not commenting on individual applications in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process).
The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I will be filing them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections. Thanks to Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to get a statement we can submit as a group.
Thank you,
Robin
On May 13, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Flávio Rech Wagner wrote:
> I fully endorse Kathy's analysis and suggestions regarding Amazon and Patagonia. And I think it is entirely possible to find the right language to represent all of our views.
>
> Flavio
>
>
>> All,
>> There is a vital split of our community, and I think that is OK. I remember talking with Robin about the split of the NCSG on the Closed Generics issues, and she celebrated it -- diversity is good in a community like ours, she said. I found that an encouraging response.
>>
>> Here too we are split on an important issue -- whether the GAC intervened appropriately on various areas of its GAC Advice? There are some in our community who did not believe the GAC had the right to intervene at all on these New gTLD policy issues. There are others of us (myself included) who believe that the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook expressly reserved the right for the Governments/GAC to intervene at this moment in time -- and to speak on substantive matters, including why some applications for New gTLDs should not be granted.
>>
>> In the Applicant Guidebook, we wrote a specific provision for GAC Advice: "The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>> ICANN Board on any application." (full section below - 1.1.2.7 of the Applicant Guidebook). We also made it almost impossibly hard - we required "consensus of the GAC" -- an almost impossible threshold. Yet, the GAC did it. They met longer than anyone in Beijing, starting the Thursday before the meeting and continuing to work on their Advice until 11pm Wednesday, six days later! I give them great credit for that. If the goal of a multistakeholder group is that everyone does their part with hard work and good faith according to the rules we have established, then my personal view is that the GAC did it and did it well.
>>
>> Does that mean that I agree with everyone they said-- no. I don't like categories, per se, but I like much of the advice there on specific applicantions. I think Communities need more support (IV.e). I don't like Closed Generics (Appendix 1). And I don't like trademark owners registering Patagonia and Amazon over the objections of their regions.
>>
>> What I see happening is a fight over the scope of trademark law and New gTLDs. That's the issue with Closed Generics and it's also the issue here. Generic and Geographic terms have special standing in trademark law -- these words have special protection under the fair use provisions. Does it stop a company from getting a trademark? Not in many cases. Does it stop it from using that trademark in a way that hurts the generic and geographic communities, businesses and sectors, Yes. Is a New gTLD ambiguous on this issue? -- double Yes. So ample room for our multistakeholder community -- including our governments and civil society to weigh in!
>>
>> And they have-- on both sides. It is very clear that civil society has weighed in to protect Patagonia and Amazon, and the governments have responded to a civil society request -- a noncommercial community request -- from these regions. I think the GAC spoke clearly and within its scope when it asked that ICANN: "not proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with the following strings." Section IV.c., GAC Advice.
>>
>> I would ask that Milton work with Carlos, as he worked with me, to find the right language in the statement that represents all of our views. Some of us are procedural people, some of us are substantive ones -- all of us are NCSG. It's a hard path, but we can do it!
>> Best,tx and regards,
>> Kathy
>> p.s. This may be easier than we think because upon review, the Patagonia/Amazon GAC Advice is section IV.c. and the public comment asks for input on section IV.b. and Annex I (the categories). Patagonia and Amazon aren't even raised in Annex I at all!
>>
>> p.p.s. The text of Applicant Guidebook, Section 1.1.2.7:
>>
>> 1.1.2.7 Receipt of GAC Advice on New gTLDs
>> The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>> ICANN Board on any application. The procedure for GAC
>> Advice on New gTLDs described in Module 3 indicates that,
>> to be considered by the Board during the evaluation
>> process, the GAC Advice on New gTLDs must be submitted
>> by the close of the objection filing period. A GAC Early
>> Warning is not a prerequisite to use of the GAC Advice
>> process.
>>
>> If the Board receives GAC Advice on New gTLDs stating
>> that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular
>> application should not proceed, this will create a strong
>> presumption for the ICANN Board that the application
>> should not be approved. If the Board does not act in
>> accordance with this type of advice, it must provide
>> rationale for doing so.
>>
>> See Module 3 for additional detail on the procedures
>> concerning GAC Advice on New gTLDs.
>> ****
>> :
>>> I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> As we move towards a common denominator, I support not including
>>>> anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as Milton
>>>> has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed generics).
>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from
>>>>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia
>>>>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is
>>>>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,
>>>>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent
>>>>> by Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this
>>>>> is just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".
>>>>>
>>>>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil
>>>>> society ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Flavio
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean
>>>>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in
>>>>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political
>>>>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the board
>>>>>> can disregard the GAC advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid
>>>>>> argument to deny an application.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many
>>>>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the
>>>>>>> paragraph mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these
>>>>>>> arguments to the commercial interest groups.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sent from a dumbphone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and
>>>>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with:
>>>>>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a sensible
>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's advice on new
>>>>>>>>>> gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you
>>>>>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated
>>>>>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division
>>>>>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home
>>>>>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and
>>>>>>>>>> made strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a
>>>>>>>>>> fresh look.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the
>>>>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
>>>>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>>>
>
|
