<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="font-variant: normal; margin-bottom: 1px; line-height: normal; margin-top: 4px; margin-right: 4px; margin-left: 4px" dir="auto">
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Basking in reflected glory here - Prof Lipton is a friend and my co-author, and we'd discussed the communique prior to her filing her comment :)</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">(We are writing a paper on closed generics, having done several others already on trademarks and domain name issues. Our views are very similar - on that and the current issue - to those of many members.)</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Cheers</font> </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Mary</font><br><br><font face="Lucida Grande" STYLE="font-size: 12pt"><br>Mary W S Wong
<BR>Professor of Law
<BR>Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
<BR>Chair, Graduate IP Programs
<BR>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
<BR>Two White Street
<BR>Concord, NH 03301
<BR>USA
<BR>Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu
<BR>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
<BR>Webpage: <a href="http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
">http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
</a><BR><br><br></font>>>> </p>
<table style="margin-bottom: 0; font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0; margin-right: 0; margin-left: 15px" border="0" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tr>
<td>
<div style="padding-left: 7px; border-left: solid 1px #050505">
<table style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Lucida Grande" bgcolor="#f3f3f3">
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>From: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@GMAIL.COM> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>To:</b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>Date: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
5/10/2013 6:18 PM </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<b>Subject: </b> </p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Prof. Jacqueline Lipton comments to ICANN on GAC Beijing Communique </p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Excellent !<br><br>-Jorge </p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
On May 10, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG">robin@IPJUSTICE.ORG</a>> wrote:<br><br> </p>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Noted law professor Jacqueline Lipton submitted clear, powerful comments to ICANN regarding the GAC's advice: </p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00010.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13/msg00010.html</a> </p>
</div>
<div>
<h3 style="font-family: Times">
Comments to ICANN: GAC Beijing Communique </h3>
<ul style="font-family: Times">
<li>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<i>To</i>: "comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13@xxxxxxxxx" <comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13@xxxxxxxxx> </p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<i>Subject</i>: Comments to ICANN: GAC Beijing Communique </p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<i>From</i>: "Lipton, Jacqueline D" <jdlipton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> </p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<i>Date</i>: Tue, 7 May 2013 15:04:43 -0500 </p>
</li>
</ul>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Times"><hr style="font-family: Times">
</font> </p>
<pre><p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
May 7, 2013</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Comments on GAC Beijing Communiqué Issued on April 11, 2013</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
I write in response to ICANN’s call for public comments on the GAC’s Beijing </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Communiqué issued on April 11, 2013 (Beijing Communiqué) with specific </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
reference to Section IV and Annexes I and II.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
In particular, the GAC has advised the Board:</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
a. Not to proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with certain strings including </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
.amazon, .patagonia, .date, .spa, .wine, .vin, and .yun (clause IV.1.c.i);</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
b. To implement new general Safeguards for all gTLDs (Annex I);</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
c. To implement new specific Safeguards for particular categories of gTLDs </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
identified by the GAC (Annex I);</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
d. To implement restricted registration policies for certain categories of </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
gTLDs (Annex I); and,</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
e. To implement a “public interest goal” requirement with respect to </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
exclusive registry access for generic terms (Annex I).</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
I am a professor of law whose expertise resides in the field of law and digital </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
technology, with particular focus on trademarks, free speech, and Internet </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
governance. I am the author of “Internet Domain Names, Trademarks, and Free </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Speech” (Edward Elgar, 2010) as well as more than forty law review articles </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
dealing with Internet domain name disputes and Internet governance more </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
generally. I also co-author the leading American Internet law casebook, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
“Cyberspace Law: Cases and Materials” (2 ed, 2005, and 3 ed, 2010) (with R. </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Ku). I hold Ph.D.s from both Cambridge University and Griffith University, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
both in the fields of regulating digital technology. My teaching is focused in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
the areas of International Intellectual Property, International Business </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Transactions, Trademark and Unfair Competition, and Internet Law.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
In my view, ICANN should not adopt any of the recommendations raised in the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Beijing Communiqué. These recommendations have been made too late in a process </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
that is already underway, and under which large sums of money have been </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
invested by applicants in reliance on previously released ICANN guidelines. </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Additionally, many applicants have made plans for innovative business models in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
new domain spaces that would be severely restricted, if not effectively </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
prohibited, if the GAC’s proposals were implemented.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Rules for granting and managing new gTLDs should not be changed at this point </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
in the system’s development. The current procedures already contain safeguards </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
with respect to the issues raised in the Beijing Communiqué. For example, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
governments – and others – are entitled to object to the grant of applications </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
for particular gTLDs on previously articulated grounds. Under the Beijing </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Communiqué, the GAC seeks to add an additional and unnecessary layer of rules </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
that serves no clear purpose over and above safeguards currently in place, and </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
that may chill online innovation. Many of the GAC’s suggestions are also </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
framed in terms that are too vague to be implemented in practice in a </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
consistent and meaningful way, despite apparently laudable policy goals. I </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
have detailed some specific concerns below. </p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
1. In the Beijing Communiqué, the GAC tends to rely on broad, undefined </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
terms as criteria to impose restrictive conditions on applications for, or </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
administration of, new gTLDs. An obvious example is the reference in Annex I </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
to implementing new gTLDs “in a manner that is fully respectful of human rights </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
and fundamental freedoms”. While this is clearly a laudable aspirational goal, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
any international human rights lawyer or advocate can attest to the difficulty </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
of defining such terms in a harmonized manner at the global level. Even the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
most basic of human rights – such as free speech – connotes different things in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
different jurisdictions. For example, while the United States has a powerful </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
First Amendment jurisprudence, Australia has no express constitutional </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
guarantee of free speech. There is no way to enshrine a meaningful concept of </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
human rights or fundamental freedoms in a uniform and workable set of rules for </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
domain names. </p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Another example of a tendency to rely on vague and undefined language in the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Beijing Communiqué arises with respect to the notion that registries be </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
required to operate “in an open manner consistent with general principles of </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
openness and non-discrimination”. Again, these are laudable aspirational goals </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
that are impossible to reduce to concrete and workable rules in practice. They </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
should not be imposed on the new domain name system at this point in its </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
development, at least not in the terms suggested in the Beijing Communiqué. </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Their application would be fraught with too much practical difficulty and would </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
tend to have a chilling effect on online innovation.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
2. The GAC suggests in the Beijing Communiqué that exclusive registry </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
access for generic terms should serve a public interest goal. As noted in my </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
comments on the “closed generic” issue in March of this year, “generic” is not </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
a term that can be meaningfully defined in the context of Internet domain </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
names. Genericness always relies on context. A term that is generic in one </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
context may well be proprietary in another. It is impossible to distill a </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
general rule to apply to all new gTLD registries to identify terms that should, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
as a general rule, be subject to a “public interest goal” requirement. For </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
example, depending on the context, “Delta” is a proprietary trademark (for </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
airlines, hardware fixtures etc.) as well as a mathematical symbol, a Greek </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
letter, and a word in the English language. </p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Even if it were possible to create a meaningful definition of “generic” in the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
context of gTLDs, it would be equally problematic to define the concept of a </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
“public interest goal”. Many of the difficulties in creating such a definition </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
have already been identified in Annex II of the Beijing Communiqué itself.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
3. The Beijing Communiqué also fails to provide a clear rubric for the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
treatment of specific strings it has identified as requiring further </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
consideration in Clause IV.1.c.i. The GAC has suggested that applications for </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
a series of strings including several valuable trademarked terms (such as </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
.amazon, .spa, and .patagonia) should not proceed past Initial Evaluation. </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Several business entities have expended significant resources in developing </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
these brands and applying for the corresponding gTLDs in good faith under </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
existing guidelines. It would be unfair to effectively veto their efforts at </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
this stage when no specific harm has been articulated by the GAC with respect </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
to the possibility of granting the applications. While the Beijing Communiqué </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
may reflect genuine concerns about conflicts between a trademark and another </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
interest in a new gTLD space, there are procedures in place – including under </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
national laws – to deal with such challenges. There is no justification for </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
removing applications for these gTLDs from consideration at this point in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
ICANN’s process.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
4. In Annex I of the Beijing Communiqué , the GAC seeks to impose heavy </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
administrative obligations and attendant costs on registries of new gTLDs in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
terms of its proposed Safeguards. These include monitoring and documentation </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
requirements that have not been imposed on domain name registries in existing </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
domain spaces. The imposition of such obligations at this point in the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
development of the new system would likely go a long way toward chilling </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
innovation online by imposing significant financial and administrative burdens </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
on those who would otherwise provide commercially valuable spaces for </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
innovation.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
5. Annex I of the Beijing Communiqué requires registry operators and </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
registrars to “respect all substantive and procedural laws under the applicable </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
jurisdictions”. It is not immediately clear that this needs to be implemented </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
as a particular new safeguard within the system, or indeed that it can be </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
implemented by ICANN meaningfully in any event. It goes without saying that </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
registry operators and registrars are subject to national laws, as well as to </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
provisions set out in the new gTLD Registry Agreement requiring compliance with </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
national laws. As with existing gTLD spaces, domestic courts and legislatures </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
will govern acceptable online conduct in new gTLD spaces in terms of compliance </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
with national law. There is no need for any new preemptive regulation by </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
ICANN. </p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
6. In Annex I, the GAC attempts to create a list of strings linked to </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
regulated or professional sectors that merit special consideration, along with </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
the imposition of additional administrative safeguards and associated burdens </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
on relevant registries. The Beijing Communiqué further states that this list of </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
strings is “non-exhaustive” which seems a little problematic in potentially </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
creating uncertainty in practice. Under this approach, the GAC appears to be </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
attempting to create a general veto power or at least exercise an unjustifiable </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
level of control over any new gTLD application without having to go through the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
already established process for objecting to specific gTLD applications. At </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
best, this approach seems like an attempt to pre-emptively regulate something </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
that doesn’t clearly need regulation outside the procedures already in place. </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
At worst, this approach will have a significant chilling effect on innovation </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
in new gTLD spaces and will lead to wasted resources. If the risks associated </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
with applying for, or managing, new gTLD registries that may be regarded as </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
falling within the categories identified by the GAC become too high, potential </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
registrants may be deterred from developing strategies for online innovation in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
those spaces. As a result, gTLDs that may otherwise have been applied for and </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
utilized for socially or commercially useful purposes will simply become wasted </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
resources.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
In sum, the new gTLD spaces should be allowed to develop as the existing gTLD </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
spaces have grown, subject to national laws, and free from the implementation </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
of ex ante rules developed in a context of uncertainty about how registries, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
registrars, and consumers will use the new system in practice. In other words, </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
the concerns raised in the Beijing Communiqué seem almost like a solution in </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
search of a problem. The gTLD expansion should be given the opportunity to </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
develop organically so that new registries can innovate subject to the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
constraints of national laws and the objection procedures set out in existing </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
ICANN guidelines.</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Again, I would urge ICANN to maintain consistency with its stated procedures </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
for applications for new gTLDs and not to impose a complicated and unnecessary </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
new system for imposing additional safeguards the need for which has not been </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
clearly articulated by the GAC. There has been adequate time during the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
development of the system to consider the issues raised in the Beijing </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Communiqué. Procedures have already been implemented to deal with those </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
concerns, notably the ability of governments and others to object to specific </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
gTLD applications. It would be inappropriate now to change the rules. While </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
the GAC’s motives are laudable, the execution of the suggestions made in the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Beijing Communiqué would be unworkable and is unnecessary at this point in the </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
development of the system. </p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have any </p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
queries in relation to the above, my contact details are below.</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Sincerely,</p>
<br>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Jacqueline D. Lipton, Ph.D.</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Baker Botts Professor of Law</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
Co-Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Information Law</p>
<p style="white-space: pre; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
University of Houston Law Center</p>
</pre>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
--------- end --------</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>