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

[Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Where in ICANN's mandate is it authorized to regulate in areas that are 
not tied to technical or legal requirements?
Robin


Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> To continue . . . 
>
> In the case of the last recommendation (19), I personally believe that
> it is important to address the case of 'substantial' opposition from a
> 'targeted' community.  I fully understand that we need to work the
> language and that it may end up with a recommendation that may not be
> tied to law or technical requirements, but I am convinced that it is
> important.
>
> 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: Gomes, Chuck 
> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:28 AM
> > To: 'robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'; philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> > Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Follow-up to 23 June
> >
> > It is important to note that we are not suggesting that 
> > strings be objected for nonlegal reasons in recommendations 3 
> > and 6.  It is also important to recognize that we are 
> > connecting to international law and not national law with the 
> > exception of the laws that an individual registry would have 
> > to follow.
> > The last recommendation (19, formerly 20) is a different case b
> >
> > 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: Monday, June 25, 2007 4:05 PM
> > > To: philip.sheppard@xxxxxx
> > > Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Follow-up to 23 June
> > >
> > > But there isn't consensus that strings should be rejected for 
> > > non-legal and non-technical reasons.
> > > So perhaps we need to reach agreement on this point before 
> > >      
> > we do the 
> >    
> >
> > > word smithing.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Robin
> > >
> > >
> > > philip.sheppard@xxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Lets not lose focus on the intent of recommendation 20 and
> > > >        
> > > our attempt
> > >      
> > >
> > > > to clarify the wording.
> > > >
> > > > It is NOT about:
> > > > - local jurisdictions, national laws etc
> > > >
> > > > It is about:
> > > > - sector or community based objection.
> > > >
> > > > Proposed edits which drive a coach and horses through the original 
> > > > intent are somewhat disapointing to see at this closing 
> > > >        
> > stage of our 
> >    
> >
> > > > lengthy community based bottom-up dialogue.
> > > >
> > > > Philip
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >        
> > >      
>