Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required
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". Wejust 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. Anyunauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Ifyou 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 inORANGE thetext 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 theImplementationPlan 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 significantsections of theReport 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 puttogether forthe San Juan meeting. Kind regards. Liz PS Note that the cut off for Constituency ImpactStatements is COB 9June Europe time -- thanks to the ISPs, BC and RyC fortheir statements...................................................... Liz Williams Senior Policy Counselor ICANN - Brussels +32 2 234 7874 tel +32 2 234 7848 fax +32 497 07 4243 mob