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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

I remember at some point of the discussions, Chuck clarified
that not all gTLD candidates will be targeted to acoomunity, and
that a provision like this only concerns those of the gTLD that
would prurport to do so.

So I suggest to spell that out, and gather that a compromise may
be to have a recommendation in two paragraphs as follows:

** "An application will be rejected if is shown to be in
violation of the national law of the country in which the
applicant is incorporated;

Furthermore, for gTLDs that purport to serve an economic sector
or a community, an application may be rejected if it is
determined that there is substantial and disrupting opposition
to it from among established institutions of the target economic
sector or  community." **

This is because, all gtlds are concerned with complying law
enforcement in their relevant legislation, and in addition those
that are intended to be sector/community-specific may have to
meet additional requirements. Further, if my memory serves me, I
think we deal with technical and operational issues elsewhere
(and I don't seem to remember if there were other reasons that
simplicity & clarity for deleting the previous mention "to which
it is targeted or which it is intended to support."

Regards,

Mawaki


--- Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> >>>
> >
> 
>