Gabi, all

I would like to ask the following new gTLD questions:

The extent to which new geoTLDs will be given space to strike a balance between complying with ICANN's registry agreement and ICANN policies, while also complying with local laws. So far the Applicant Guidebook doesn't seem to appreciate this in the case of geoTLDs.
Is the Board willing to allow additional national intellectual property protection measures to complement the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) mechanism? There are geoTLD operators that have additional IP protection measures that are meant to protect regional and national IP rights, which IP rights are not sufficiently catered for in the TMCH because the TMCH has really only been advertised in some regions while other regions are totally ignored.
The Applicant Guidebook has a positive measure that allows national governments, in the case of geoTLDs, to use the Reserved Names List (RNL) process to reserve names belonging (or attributable) to governments (and their entities). Recently, it has now transpired that ICANN wants (or is proposing) to subject certain portions of the RNL process to some approval by the Intellectual Property Constituency (in some way) - more a case of the private sector having to approve what governments submit to the RNL process. Does the Board support this approach?

These questions are overtly new gTLD focussed & probably only of interest to those ccTLDs that are involved in the new gTLD process (such as .ZA, .UK and .FR). If the council feels they should be addressed outside the Council meeting with the Board, I will accept that decision.

Regards,

Vika