RE: [gtld-council] proposed new Rec. #21

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hopefully our criteria for filing objections will be as clear as
possible so we can minimize challenges that will not have merit, but the
reality is that there will probably be some, so it seems important to
make sure that we are explicit about how the dispute panels evaluate all
challenges. If my understanding is correct, if a rights challenge is
submitted, the panel would evaluate the challenge based on all rights
that are based on international principles of law.  For example, if a
string was challenged because of IP rights, that challenge must be
evaluated based not just on IP rights contained in international
principles of law but also would be weighed relative to other rights
contained in international principles of law to the extent that rights
may conflict.  Is that consistent with what others think?

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:08 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Milton Mueller
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] proposed new Rec. #21
> 
> Thanks Chuck.   Rec #21 does not create any different 
> exposure for the 
> board than Rec #3 does.
> 
> We are trying to narrow the types of objections that can send 
> an applicant to an expert panel.  Those objections based 
> solely on viewpoint would not go an expert panel because that 
> would not respect existing legal rights.
> 
> Robin
> 
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >Thanks Robin.
> >
> >It seems to me that this wording may go counter to one of the 
> >objectives we have pursued for a long time on the New gTLD 
> Committee, 
> >that is to attempt to not put the ICANN Board in a situtation where 
> >they are overly exposed to risk.  I understand Milton's 
> point that it 
> >may be impossible to limit all risk in that regard because 
> they are the 
> >overall coordinator of the process.  But I still think we 
> should try to 
> >minimize their exposure.  In that regard, would the 
> following word work for you.
> >
> >"The expert panel tasked with evaluating any string challenges filed 
> >must weigh an applicant's freedom of expression rights as 
> contained in 
> >internationally recognized principles of law."
> >
> >I suspect others may be able to word this better than me, 
> but my goal 
> >is focus on the what the expert panel would need to do rather than 
> >focus on the over all string selection process.
> >
> >Chuck Gomes
> > 
> >"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to 
> >which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged, 
> >confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any 
> >unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly 
> prohibited. 
> >If you have received this message in error, please notify sender 
> >immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> > 
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> >>[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> >>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:42 AM
> >>To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Cc: Milton Mueller
> >>Subject: [gtld-council] proposed new Rec. #21
> >>
> >>How about the following for a proposed new Rec #21?
> >>
> >>"The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's 
> >>freedom of expression rights that are enforceable under 
> >>internationally recognized principles of law."
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Robin
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>