RE: [gtld-council] Objection criteria

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

I personally think that including this in the RN work is not the best
way to go.  I think we will have more than enough to do in 30 days and
this topic deserves more attention than we could give to it.  I would
suggest that a separate group be formed (not too large but diverse
enough to cover competing concerns) including members of the
Constroversial names subgroup.

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 10:51 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Objection criteria
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >
> 
>