RE: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required
- To: <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:55:26 -0400
Regarding #8, we are definitely not saying "automatically rejected". We
just removed the "deferred' phrase per Alan's comment. A name would
only be rejected if there was substantial opposition from the targeted
"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: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:53 PM
> To: Liz Williams; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart
> & Responses Required
> Thanks for sending this out so fast Liz.
> 3 points on the new draft:
> Rec. #3 and #6:
> We had agreed to specifically mention "freedom of expression"
> as a type of interest to protect under the UDHR and ICCPR.
> Rec #3.
> I thought we weren't going to keep the GAC 2.3 privileging
> trademark owners and IGOs since we added a mention to both
> the trademark interest and the free expression/human rights
> interest in the body of Rec#3.
> Rec #8.
> Are we now saying that the application will automatically be
> based opposition? The previous language was "deferred or
> otherwise rejected" so we seem to be dropping the "deferred"
> and going right to "rejected" with this change. I don't
> think that was what was intended.
> Liz Williams wrote:
> > Colleagues
> > Thank you very much on your continued work and support.
> > Please find attached an overview document which sets out in
> ORANGE the
> > text from today's meeting.
> > Could I ask you to please RESPOND to me as quickly as possible with
> > your indication of support for EACH of the recommendations as they
> > stand? I assume that everyone supports the principles and the
> > implementation guidelines as they stand. They will be used by the
> > implementation team to prepare the presentations on the
> > Plan for the San Juan meeting.
> > Could you please respond in the following way:
> > Recommendation 1 -- support
> > Recommendation 2 -- need more work
> > Recommendation 3 -- support and so on
> > If you do this, I will be able to finalise significant
> sections of the
> > Report and provide assistance to the implementation team on a large
> > body of work that depends upon the completion of policy
> > recommendations.
> > I will also be able to advise you on the small elements that need
> > further discussion which will guide the sessions we put
> together for
> > the San Juan meeting.
> > Kind regards.
> > Liz
> > PS Note that the cut off for Constituency Impact
> Statements is COB 9
> > June Europe time -- thanks to the ISPs, BC and RyC for
> their statements.
> > .....................................................
> > Liz Williams
> > Senior Policy Counselor
> > ICANN - Brussels
> > +32 2 234 7874 tel
> > +32 2 234 7848 fax
> > +32 497 07 4243 mob