Yap! Great conversation. Thank you, Mr. Drake :-) --sent from a handheld-- excuse brevity and any typos-- On Apr 2, 2013 3:53 PM, "Kathy Kleiman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Great, it sounds like a good idea - and a good debate, Bill! > Tx for submitting, > Kathy > : > > Hi > > I didn't have a lot of time due to deadlines to debate this with folks > in advance, but FWIW I put in a Fast Track budget request to ICANN for NCUC > to hold a workshop/debate on the topic at the IGF Bali. Since even with > NCUC there are strongly differen views, we should be able to have a rather > lively multistakeholder debate if approved. > > I also put in a joint proposal for NCSG/NCUC/NPOC for a workshop on CS @ > GNSO, what works, what doesn't, some critical analysis plus outreach to > potential new participants. > > Both visible at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/view-proposals just > search on my name if interested. > > Best, > > Bill > > On Apr 2, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > For those of us deeply concerned about Closed Generic TLDs, there seems > to be some indication that the GAC is moving forward on some > recommendations in this area.... but the GAC wording posted by Robin below > is fairly obscure, and we'll learn more in Beijing! > > Best, > Kathy > : > > our paternalistic GAC and their censorship plans for the Internet .... > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *David Olive <[log in to unmask]> > *Date: *April 1, 2013 5:34:20 AM PDT > *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> > *Subject: **[Soac-infoalert] GAC draft gTLD agenda for Beijing and advice > to the ICANN Board on controversial or sensitive strings and applications* > > https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee > > 31 March 2013 > GAC draft gTLD agenda for Beijing and advice to the ICANN Board on > controversial or sensitive strings and applications > > As the New gTLD Program moves forward, the GAC is making preparations > for delivering further advice on new gTLDs. This advice constitutes a key > element of the overall process as outlined in the Applicant Guidebook (AG). > > As anticipated, GAC Member Early Warnings were issued on November 20, > 2012, and applicants and GAC Members have been exchanging information with > the aim of reaching an understanding or agreement on concerns raised, > wherever possible. > > In terms of the next phase, described in module 3.1 of the AG, the GAC > as a whole will be discussing its advice on new gTLDs. These sessions are > organized into two parts: > > Part I Safeguard advice on the basis of categories of strings > > The GAC discussions will proceed on the basis of advice to safeguard > categories of strings that raise concerns, or potential concerns, for > governments. There are currently nine draft categories of strings proposed > for the GAC’s Beijing agenda. Six were identified in the GAC Toronto > Communique: > > Consumer protection > Strings that are linked to regulated market sectors, such as the > financial, health and charity sectors > Competition issues > Strings that have broad or multiple uses or meanings, and where one > entity is seeking exclusive use > Religious terms where the applicant has no, or limited, support from > the relevant religious organisations or the religious community. > Minimising the need for defensive registrations > Protection of geographic names > Intellectual property rights particularly in relation to strings aimed > at the distribution of music, video and other digital material > > Three additional categories have now been proposed for consideration: > > Support for applications submitted by global authorities > Corporate Identifier gTLDs > Strings that represent inherent government functions and/or activities > > As the GAC looks at these nine categories, and how they would apply to > strings and applications falling under these categories, the number of > safeguard categories or titles of the categories could change. > > Part II GAC advice/objections on specific applications > > Twenty specific applications have been brought forward by a GAC Member > or Members for consideration by the GAC. The GAC Member(s) putting forward > these applications have linked them to the following categories: > > Community name where the applicant does not have support from the > community or the government: 1 > Consumer protection: 2 > Name of an Intergovernmental Organisation (IGO): 1 > Protection of geographic names: 9 > Religious terms: 2 > Strings applied for that represent inherent government functions and/or > activities: 3 > Support for applications submitted by global authorities: 2 > > The Operating Principles of the GAC outline the consensus-based approach > of the Committee and will serve as a key reference for the GAC in its > deliberations. > > The GAC looks forward to the upcoming meetings and holding exchanges > with the ICANN Board and community on these and other important matters. > > > -- > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 > Washington, D.C. 20005 > Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > soac-infoalert mailing list > [log in to unmask] > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > > > > > > > > -- > > > >