This may be where I stick my foot in my mouth but I would like to suggest a middle ground here. I see little gain from simply opposing any GAC authority where geographic and similar gTLD names confront national geographic sensitivities. The issue would not go away and there would be the prospects of either ICANN simply saying “yes” to government requests, or an endless series of one-gTLD-at-a-time trench fights involving ICANN, constituencies, and individual national governments, trench fights with the potential for considerable collateral damage all around. It of course makes sense to support a recommended consultation process between potential applicants and national authorities. There also may be merit to having individual governments convey their recommendations through GAC, and not have individual governments make recommendations directly to ICANN. In the case of government approval GAC would simply convey approval to ICANN. In the case where government objects there may be some merit in GAC having a short time frame review of the case, one that allows for submissions by other stakeholders. If the GAC review does not change the individual government’s position, GAC conveys non-approval to ICANN. This process would have several merits. It recognizes the legitimacy of national interests in geographic related gTLDs, in contested gTLDs it allows for a second consultation within GAC, and it channels government relations through GAC to ICANN. As well, it starts to generate a body of case law like decisions that begin to set the boundaries on where national geographic sensitivities come into play, and that evolves from within GAC, and not from within ICANN, which should not be making decisions in this area. As for worries that this area of geographic sensitivities would be used against freedom of expression or to curb the activities of civil society, while I always worry about governmental interference in the human rights of people and peoples, I do not see this issue as a particular threat in that area. Sam L.