Re: [gtld-council] Objection criteria
- To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Objection criteria
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:50:54 +0100
I agree that a lot of the basis is in there, and Liz is right it will
be specific by string category. but I think the process involves
diving into the details more then we have to date and proposing
specific criteria and thresholds.
Maybe RN is the right place to do this and this should be part of its
next scope of work - i did not mean to argue that it could not be
done there, and it is an extension of the RN work. I just think that
someone needs to focus some extra intense cycles on this specific task.
On 26 mar 2007, at 15.38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I think that the RN-WG Controversial names report may be helpful in
regard. Some excellent thought was provided in the report that
beneficial to the dispute process in the overall process.
"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
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:29 AM
Subject: [gtld-council] Objection criteria
As the questions in the open forum provoke - i think this is
an area where we are still wildly hand waving.
Perhaps this is worth small WG/editing team effort to create
some proposed language for establishing guideline on who has
standing, how the objection is judged valid, how the question
is passed off to the review team etc...