ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:00:53 +0200

And the additional part of that is that an application which may deferred or otherwise subject to extended evaluation is not out in perpetuity. There is nothing to stop an applicant (or someone else) submitting another application in later rounds.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 07 Jun 2007, at 19:55, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

Robin,

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
community.

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 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
"rejected"
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.

Thanks,
Robin





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
Implementation
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










<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>