Re: [gtld-council] Objection criteria

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

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.
a.


On 26 mar 2007, at 15.38, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I think that the RN-WG Controversial names report may be helpful in  
> this
> regard.  Some excellent thought was provided in the report that  
> could be
> beneficial to the dispute process in the overall 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 Avri Doria
> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:29 AM
> > To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gtld-council] Objection criteria
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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...
> >
> > a.