<html>
<head>
</head>
<body style="margin-top: 4px; margin-bottom: 1px; margin-right: 4px; margin-left: 4px; line-height: normal; font-variant: normal">
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Nothing too startling or new but interesting in terms of how Heather describes what the GAC intended:</font> </p>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<i><u><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-gac-advice-10may13-en.htm"><font size="3" face="Lucida Grande" color="#0000ff">http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/kits/video-gac-advice-10may13-en.htm</font></a></u></i><font face="Lucida Grande" size="3"></font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">FWIW I agree with Kathy that the AGB is framed sufficiently broadly to allow the GAC to give wide-ranging policy advice to the ICANN Board; that was a specific accommodation to the GAC late in the implementation process (along with the Early Warning and free objection process, IIRC.) That set up a brief discussion among some of us as to the difference between GAC advice rendered in this context and GAC Advice (capital A) vis-a-vis the ICANN Bylaws but it seemed clear that if such advice was given then the Board would pretty much follow what they did during the GAC/trademarks scorecard process - which from the recent announcement by the Board's New gTLD Program Committee it seems like they are.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">Too bad this GAC advice did not, as contemplated, come BEFORE the objection period closed; even worse that it is so tremendously general, broad and vague on the issues it raises, especially as to what the "public interest" means and how far their "non-exhaustive" list of strings identified in the various categories goes.</font> </p>
<br>
<p style="margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="3">I personally think the .patagonia and .amazon point in Milton's current draft is made stronger by their specific inclusion but in deference to the very strong feeling among a large minority of our vocal members am fine with changing that to a less specific phrasing while making it clear that - whether it be trademark law or otherwise - there has to be a recognized legal basis for stopping applications other than "some of us don't like it". If there is no formal legal basis then a broad public interest argument can be made only if the public interest can be clearly identified as one that's so critical as to warrant protection - maybe that can be the community point that others have raised (though that is not one I personally think sufficiently weighty).</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>
</p>
<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></body>
</html>