RE: [gtld-council] Objection criteria

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

In the RN-WG, the Controversial Names subgroup chaired by Avri is
looking at this but not sure how much time they will be able to spend on
it.

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 Liz Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 7:34 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Objection criteria
> 
> Colleagues
> 
> I wonder if you could re-visit this question within your 
> various working groups -- the nature of objection and the 
> standing of objectors in the application evaluation process 
> is important.
> 
> This thread was not completed post Lisbon and I would value 
> further discussion if you can.
> 
> Liz
> .....................................................
> 
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Mar 2007, at 16:50, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >>>
> >>
> 
>