Thanks for your comments, Vanda & sorry to miss you on the call tonight/tomorrow. Just to clarify – when you refer to Recommendation 3 – you are commenting on the policy recommendation No 3 from the 2012 round which is quoted in 1.8.1 (a), correct, and not the 3rd item on the list of preliminary recommendations from the Work Track which are in 1.8.1 (c)? If that is the case, I would encourage you to submit these comments during the public comment period so that they are fully captured for future consideration as this particular aspect of the existing recommendation No.3 did not arise during our deliberations. With regard to your comment on Recommendation 12 – assuming you are again referencing the existing policy recommendation shown in 1.8.1(a) – I believe this is addressed in the Work Track’s list of preliminary recommendations by the 3rd item on the list in 1.8.1(c). Please let us know if you do not feel that preliminary outcomes and deliberations from our work track are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner Best, Karen Co-chair WT3 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 10:22 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] comments and apologies Importance: High EXTERNAL Dear friends Here my comments Section1.8 Recommendations 3 – though I am totally in favor to respect intellectual property, this is quite difficult to follow and enforcement since Trade Mark is territorial. International recognized brands have no problem to enter clearing houses, but it is not yet clear to me how local brands, trying to enter into the clearing house and found another brand similar to them from another country, as legitimate as its own, can really be protected… We had no case till now, since we had very few organization in the whole South Hemisphere entering into 2012 bid. But now, with more knowledge spread, this will change…. Just a comment. We cannot change WIPO’s rules. Recommendation 12 – I believe we need to define better Rules of Proceedings and not only the Process itself. Remembering that for 2012 was defined that “community interested strings” should collected worldwide letter of support from those communities the string will be set for. In the dispute time this had no real value (though had cost a lot of money) since the bid was set without ask the participants to prove they had make similar collection of support. If the Rules of Proceeding were not very clear and be followed, the dispute will not be fair. Section 1.3 – Besides the inclusion of topics from Final Report of Competition, Consumer Trust & Choice I have no other comment to add. Here my Apologies for not be able to attend the call this week. Best regards and successful meeting! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.