Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Follow-up to 23 June

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Liz,

I have significant objections to #20 as currently drafted (and even more 
so as you proposed today, which goes even further in permitting 
objections to stop an application than the current draft of #20).
So I would propose the following for #20:
    "An application may be rejected only if is shown to be in violation 
of the national law of the country in which the applicant is 
incorporated or if the applicant is shown to lack the technical or 
operational capacity to perform the necessary functions of managing the 
domain."
Thanks,
Robin


Liz Williams wrote:

> Robin
>
> Thanks for that -- do I understand you correctly that you don't have  
> an issue with the drafting of the recommendation but that in  
> implementation there would be limitations on who could object to what?
> If you still have a problem with the drafting of the recommendation,  
> do you have an alternative suggestion?
> Liz
> .....................................................
>
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
>
>
>
>
> On 24 Jun 2007, at 20:23, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> > As I stated yesterday in the meeting, there must be a limitation on  
> > the *type* of objection that can stop an application for a new gtld  
> > (in addition to *who* can complain).
> > An objection to the string must be based on either law or technical/ 
> > operational issues.  Otherwise, we swallow up all our attempts to  
> > narrow evaluation criteria to these issues and it becomes a free  for 
> > all.
> > The language for #20 below still permits the 'Legion of Decency'  
> > type of actors or competitors to stop an application for non-legal  
> > reasons.  It encourages lobbying for and against applications -  
> > really bad idea.
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > How about this for clarity:
> > >
> > > "An application will be rejected if it is determined that
> > > there is opposition to it from among established
> > > institutions of the economic sector, or cultural community, and  the 
> > > degree
> > > of that opposition is substantial.
> > >
> > > Note
> > > Clarifies our intent
> > > Deletes redundant "language community" as it is subset of cultural
> > >
> > > Philip