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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have to clarify that the language I suggest below was intended
to encapsulate the latest state of the discussion (where we left
this lately). This is not necessarily suggested for final
formulation of the recommendation. Obviously, there are
questions to be clarified. For example, I'm not clear whether
the gtlds targetting a sector of activity or a community are a
specific group of gtld (e.g., stld) or whether we mean any
application that makes claims to serve a specific audience, or a
gtld string that clearly seems to designate a spcefic audience
(even if the applicant doesn't make the claim to serve that
audience.)

My understanding was that we need more work/discussion to
clarify those potential issues (now aggravated by the one that
is raised by Ross about law violation.) It may be that we
realize in the process that the "transaction costs" for this
policy recommendation are too high in comparison to its assumed
benefits, and agree to drop it off altogether.

I have no assumption here.

Mawaki  


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> > >>>
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
>