<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Greg,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for reminding us about the essence of the multistakeholder model.</div><div><br></div><div>In some ways, it’s indicative of how international and transnational governance models have evolved from a Westphalian Sovereign-Nation-State centered exclusive club, then to a broader International Community of States, that then added entities as subjects of International Law: International Organizations like the UN, International Humanitarian NGOs like Red Cross and Red Crescent, Democratic Supranational Organizations of pooled sovereignty like the European Union, and then the unthinkable: individual persons as bearers of international rights and standing with the rise of regional and universal Human Rights protection regimes. As the relevance of the pure 19th century Nation-State model has progressively morphed, experiments like ICANN become possible: <font color="#000000"><span style="font-size: 23px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">a corporation that although born in a subnational unit of a State, operates with participants and constituencies from all over the Planet (Sovereign States, non-sovereign territories -like my country Puerto Rico-, private commercial and non-commercial entities and interests, technical constituencies; all working in a mechanism that impacts the evolution of the Internet, within ICANN’s (very limited) DNS remit. It’s a governance model well suited for an ideally borderless and transnational phenomenon like the global interoperable Internet.</span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size: 23px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size: 23px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Multistakeholder global entities like ICANN are quite a new experiment. For some -including myself- the concept that the opinion of one person is as valid as the opinion of a hundred or thousand year old Nation-State is sometimes hard to fathom. I think States naturally perceive multistakeholderism as a disruptive concept, a threat to their model (some States</span></font><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> more than others; some up-front and others hypocritically). </span></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size: 23px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size: 23px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Multistakeholderism is a very fragile thing; on a cliff; almost a fiction. It can sometimes seem like pure process, mere ritual, and worse: before I began to understand a bit the true merit and added value of it, I though it was an elaborate farce. But It is my belief that multistakeholderism is something to be defended, protected, perfected and further entrenched in the way we do governance at all levels, whether global or local. It requires a lot of work, a lot of diplomacy, intelligence, maturity and patience. And I do admire States that accept multistakeholder “rules”, because they must continually show incredible levels of self-restraint in the face of the pure insolence of some people and entities. But the equation has been historically the opposite: individuals have had to </span></font>withstand not only insolent, but also violent States - which in any case are run by either insolent or violent Individuals anyways (by the way, some States even have to resist and survive their own insolent leaders, like the current US President). <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">But multistakeholderism, I believe, is a step in the right direction for humanity, that is consistent with the way global governance structures have been evolving, that I hope sticks and keeps on expanding, for it grants great legitimacy and strength to the norms that are consensually born through it.</span></div><div><br><div>Javier Rúa-Jovet<div>ALAC</div><div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">+1-787-396-6511</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">twitter: @javrua</span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">skype: javier.rua1</span></div><div><font color="#000000" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua</a> </font></div><div><br></div></div></div><div><br>El dic. 6, 2017, a la(s) 12:20 a. m., Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The role of governments here is that of one set of stakeholders among many. Governments don't get to be special stakeholders. The essence of the multistakeholder model, rooted in the private sector (broadly defined), is that the people get to speak directly -- without the intermediation of governments. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">When government representatives speak here, their pronouncements don't carry extra weight. The proposition has been put forth that when stakeholders speak, it is merely their own personal views. If this is true for any stakeholders, it must be true for all. Conversely, if it is not true for some stakeholders, it is not true for any.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The latter is clearly the case -- it is not true. The multistakeholder model demands that each of us act in a representative capacity for the stakeholders in our particular community that do not participate directly. This is not the special province of governments. A fundamental truth of ICANN is that it is not and cannot be a "government-led" structure. It is not merely a multistakeholder structure -- it is an equally multistakeholder structure.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I share Farzaneh's view that the utopian ideal of the government as nothing more than the representative of the people doesn't really hold true in reality. Governments represent their own interests, which (for self-preservation) need to intersect with the interests of whoever (or whatever) put them in power -- party supporters, big donors, the establishment, etc. That is not meant to invalidate governments -- just to caution against elevating them above other stakeholders in this process.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This is <u>particularly</u> true with regard to the topic of strings with geographic meanings (a/k/a geographic names). These strings are not uniquely geographic; they have other meanings and applications. We can't elevate the geographic meaning/application above other meanings/applications -- for that very reason we cannot elevate governments above other stakeholders.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 2:16 AM, Bonnie B Mtengwa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw" target="_blank">bmtengwa@potraz.gov.zw</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="m_-8527121663430710036WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear Team<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>When relating to geo-Names we cannot avoid talking of Governments, because people in those areas are represented by their Governments, and the Governments appoints its own representatives in the GAC. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>So whether legitimately elected or appointed, the fact is that Geo-Names are also in the purview of governments.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>The role of governments then need to be clearly defined in our work, because they are critical if we need to move forward on this issue.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Bonnie <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">farzaneh badii <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" target="_blank">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Monday, 04 December 2017 at 07:14<br><b>To: </b><<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>></span></p><div><div class="h5"><br><b>Cc: </b>Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><wbr>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well<u></u><u></u></div></div><p></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal">On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Group,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">regarding the role of “governments”:<br><br>People rely on their elected representatives to defend them from (for example) land grabs: e.g. city names, country names, or other geo based gTLDs. In this regard the “Government” doesn’t exercise some “control”: it protects the interests of its citizens! For the People (by the people).<br><br>In that regard: I see a very POSITIVE role in Governments protecting namespaces from being cyber squatted. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So thanks to the GAC: Keep fighting for The People. <br><br>Alexander.berlin<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Even for democratic countries the above sounds very optimistic to me. Governments don't always fight for their people they have their self interest and incentives, like many other entities and actors. Governments don't always get elected by their people. Even in democratic countries when you talk about the government you need to be very specific. Government is big. Are you talking about the elected representatives or just some administrative representatives who are appointed not elected? GAC does not gain any legitimacy over other actors just because they are "governments". <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Arasteh<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:55 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a>><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br><b>Cc:</b> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><wbr>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear All<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">There is no primacy issue here.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is the sovereignty of governments on the names of their cities, rivers. Historical places, religious holy places legends which must be respected<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">There should be a respect to all these and no commercial interests shall compromise them<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If there is supremacy on the table it does not come from governments but it from others that which to forced governments to give up their national and historical heritage<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">You can support each other’s as many time as you wish but that does not deprive any governments from its legitimate rights<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">We need to express our views freely without being criticised , collectively attacked and ofended <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Tks <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kavouss<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div id="m_-8527121663430710036m_1745382101019392480m_-3908956810174245642AppleMailSignature"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Sent from my iPhone<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><br>On 30 Nov 2017, at 15:44, Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com" target="_blank">paul.rosenzweig@<wbr>redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Robin, Greg and Aslam are completely correct. The repeated efforts by the GAC to assert primacy in the development of rules and policies is antithetical to the very concept of the multi-stakeholder model. It is particularly necessary to be cautious when GAC primacy is asserted in support of mandates and authoritarian models of behavior.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Paul</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">Paul Rosenzweig</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">M: <a href="tel:(202)%20329-9650" target="_blank">+1 (202) 329-9650</a></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d">VOIP: <a href="tel:(202)%20738-1739" target="_blank">+1 (202) 738 1739</a></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#1f497d"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 30, 2017 1:28 AM<br><b>To:</b> Aslam Mohamed <<a href="mailto:aslam@rnaip.com" target="_blank">aslam@rnaip.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><wbr>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Concerns on the WT5 Terms of Reference and proposed expansion of the scope of geo-names to include other concepts as well<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Robin;<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">It is important for all participants to acknowledge that the views of each participant carry equal weight and each participant participates on an equal footing. Characterizing one participant’s comments as “personal views” seems intended to be dismissive. All views here are equally “personal” as all are stakeholders. This is not a cyberspace version of “Animal Farm,” where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Similarly, it’s important for any participant to be cautious about claiming to speak for other stakeholders without express authorization to do so. This can appear to an attempt to inflate the importance of one’s own views by claiming they are the views of many. This is not helpful to genuine dialogue, especially in conjunction with attempts to minimize the views of others.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">We are each here to represent the views and concerns of the many in our respective stakeholder communities who do not and cannot participate directly in the ICANN process. This equivalency is fundamentally important to the success of the multistakeholder process.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM Aslam Mohamed <<a href="mailto:aslam@rnaip.com" target="_blank">aslam@rnaip.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Dear Kavouss <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I was quite impressed by your emphatic advocacy for GAC in Abu Dhabi and I see it continues in your comments on ToR in the mail trailed below. However I would like to meet you sometime or offline and till then emphasize that in a multi stakeholder forum like ICANN, GAC will have to modify it’s approach and not seek GAC primacy in the decision making process. Hence I would suggest we approach the entire WT5 process in a spirit that GAC advice is NOT binding on the Board and that the GAC would accept this position as and when it arises.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Kind Regards</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Aslam G Mohamed. Advocate</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">US Business Development</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Mob <a href="tel:+1%20646%20243%209857" target="_blank">+1 646 243 9857</a></span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br><image001.png></span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><br>RNA, Technology and IP Attorneys </span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="http://rnaip.com/" target="_blank">rnaip.com</a> </span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <<a href="mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com" target="_blank">kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><table class="m_-8527121663430710036MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><table class="m_-8527121663430710036MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><h3><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-gd">Robin Gross</span> <span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-go"><a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/1311182?hl=en" target="_blank"><span style="color:#222222">via</span></a> <a href="http://icann.org/" target="_blank">icann.org</a> </span><u></u><u></u></h3></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-g3">6:48 PM (1 hour ago)</span> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm"><image002.jpg></span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></td><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"></td><td rowspan="2" style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm"><image002.jpg></span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div id="m_-8527121663430710036m_1745382101019392480m_-3908956810174245642m_380318806956740215gmail-:1o0"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm"><image002.jpg></span> within the lines<u></u><u></u></p></div></td></tr><tr><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"></td><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"></td><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><table class="m_-8527121663430710036MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"><span class=""><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-hb">Dear All, I wish to comment on comments made by Robin</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-hb">to </span><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-g2">gnso-newgtld-w.</span><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215gmail-hb"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div></span><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm"><image002.jpg></span><u></u><u></u></p></div></td></tr></tbody></table><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div id="m_-8527121663430710036m_1745382101019392480m_-3908956810174245642m_380318806956740215gmail-:1ny"><div id="m_-8527121663430710036m_1745382101019392480m_-3908956810174245642m_380318806956740215gmail-:1nn"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.<br><br><em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.</span></em><br><br><span style="color:blue">Reply</span><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue">This is your views, </span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue">Views of many GAC MEMBER<em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></em>is entirely <em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">in line with draft </span></em>The course of action mentioned by the Board is before 2016 there were two procedure either seeking agreement or apply the mitigation. Several GAC<em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></em>members opposed to the second option <em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">.There are</span></em> <em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">several GAC ADVICE IN THIS REGARD</span></em></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue"> .</span></em><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT</span></em><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue">Reply</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue">Again this is your personal views as many GAC members associate crucial importance to these two criteria <br></span><span lang="EN-US"><br> While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.<br><em><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue">Reply</span></em><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue">While I disagree to start with risk based approach at the begining of the process , I disagree with you catégorisions it as negative</span></em><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Regards</span></em><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kavouss <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Martin Sutton <<a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org" target="_blank">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a><wbr>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi Robin, <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you for sending through your comments. We will combine your comments on the ToR with those provided on the call and subsequent submissions from WT5 members, so we can review on next week’s call.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Regarding the risk approach, I over-simplified the slides in order to focus attention on drawing out the risks as a primary goal before leading us into assessing the risks. At that stage we must look at whether the risks themselves warrant any specific controls (beyond the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms for a live registry) and how these could impact any positive elements of enabling new gTLDs relating to geographic terms. This is an important aspect of the process and needs to balance the risks we are concerned about with the level of controls applied. Back to my physics days, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - so as we move the dial of controls, we do need to appreciate the impact of such changes with the aim of achieving an acceptable balance. I should have made that clearer and I note that some of the comments in the chat I have subsequently read picked up on this point as well.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Kind regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Martin<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="m_-8527121663430710036m1745382101019392480m-3908956810174245642m380318806956740215hoenzb"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:#888888"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#888888">Martin Sutton</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#888888">Executive Director</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#888888">Brand Registry Group</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:#888888"><a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org" target="_blank">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a></span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-US"><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On 29 Nov 2017, at 17:48, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I didn’t have audio on last night’s WT5 call, so thought I’d send my comments directly to the list today about the proposed Terms of Reference revealed yesterday.<br><br>Paragraph 1: It is not appropriate to include an “approval" model as something this group will make recommendations on, that presumptively moves away from the model that the GNSO and Board created in the last round, which intentionally and explicitly did not require a permission-based model for names. It is simply inappropriate for this fundamental policy change to be slipped-in to the Terms of Reference before we begin our work. We would be ill-advised to “put the cart before the horse”, but this bracketed language does exactly that.<br><br>Paragraph 2: Regulating "names with a cultural significance" and "names with economic significance" are outside the scope of this PDP. This is a PDP regarding geo-names, so adding-on two additional types of names into the ToR is an inappropriate expansion of the scope of this group’s mandate. Let’s focus on defining what “geo-names” are, rather than including other concepts into the ToR -- that are geo-names. This PDP was set-up to work on geo-names, the chartering organizations agreed to participate under the understanding that it would be limited to geo-names, so we need to stick to our mandate and our agreement in setting up the WT. <br><br>While I support giving significant consideration to risks in our analysis, let's flesh this concept out more and also include benefits in the analysis, rather than being singularly focused on risks. We are in danger of having a wholly “negative” analysis that won’t consider “positives” as well. We may wish to recognize that some risks are worth taking and consider some element of a risk-to-benefit analysis in order to be more complete in our own evaluation. Our analysis should recognize that some issues create risks to one part of ICANN community while simultaneously creating benefits to other parts of the ICANN community — we need to consider how we will handle such mixed outcomes and viewpoints in our analysis. So I think this can be a highly useful approach, but needs to be fleshed out, balanced, and nuanced a bit further in light of the complexities.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Robin<br><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><div><div class="h5"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <u></u><u></u></span></p><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-US"><hr size="3" width="100%" align="center"></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:gray">IMPORTANT NOTICE - The contents of this email and attachments are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. Copying or communicating any part of it to others is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or rely on this email and should please return it immediately or notify us by telephone. While we take every reasonable precaution to screen out computer viruses from emails, attachments to this email may contain such viruses. We cannot accept liability for loss or damage resulting from such viruses. The integrity of email across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and RNA will not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium for transmissions by or to RNA.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div class="h5"><div><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal">______________________________<wbr>_________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5</a></span></div></blockquote></div></body></html>