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. >>>