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.
>>>
|
