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