Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

As far as I understand, the definitions you attached to the note are  
not part of the committees recommendations, and are not included in  
the implementation guidelines either.  In fact I do not believe they  
were discussed by the committee itself though they may have been  
discussed in the discussion group. I believe they may be being  
considered by the staff.
Thanks for the comments.

a.

On 16 jul 2007, at 04.28, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Given the useful implementation definitions already written for  
> rec. 20 is any more clarity needed ? Rec. 20 carefully reflected  
> the group's discussions as annotated below:
> "An application will be rejected  (WILL is correct here as it  
> relates to a determination of SUBSTANTIAL opposition. If there is  
> opposition that is determined NOT to be substantial, there will be  
> no rejection).
> if is it determined, (MEANS there will be a panel to so determine)
> based on public comments (recognises that initial opposition may be  
> communicated via public comments, and so staff would then invite a  
> formal objection)
> or otherwise (that is a formal objection)
> that there is substantial opposition to it  (keyword SUBSTANTIAL,  
> see definition below)
> from among significant established institutions (see definition below)
> of the economic sector, or cultural or language community, (that is  
> a commercial or social interest)
> to which it is targeted (that is the STRING may be so deemed to be  
> targeted by the objecting institution)
> or which it is intended to support." (that is the  APPLICATION is  
> explicit about use).
> In other words, the group has already covered all the angles we  
> have recently discussed yet again! The other attempts to simplify  
> the recommendation are less elegant.
> We see no need to change.
>
> Philip
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
>
> Substantial Opposition: A procedure including required  
> documentation will be prepared by ICANN. this documentation will  
> include elements such as a detailed description of the community  
> affected and the nature of the harm it would cause that community  
> to have the TLD granted to the applicant. In judging substantial  
> opposition, the process will include consideration of the number of  
> completely independent established institutions registering an  
> objection.
> Established institution: While the normal criteria should for an  
> institution that has been in formal existence for at least 10  
> years. In exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an  
> institution that has been in existence for fewer then 10 years.  
> Exceptional circumstance may relate to reasons such as:  
> organization was reorganized or merged with another organization,  
> community is younger the 10 years.
> Formal existence: This is defined by an appropriate form of public  
> registration or clear public historical evidence. Third party  
> validation by a government, Intergovernmental organization or well  
> known established institution (e.g. International Red Cross, a Bar  
> Association, a Medical Certification Body) may also be used.