ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting timing

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting timing
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 07:31:19 +0200


For clarity, does this mean that we are reverting to the original text prior to the small group call? The NCUC undertook to provide commentary on the updated text which was much cleaner and simpler.

I have copied it here below:

"Recommendation 20

An application that is targeted to a specific community may be rejected if it is determined that there is substantial opposition to it from significant established institutions within the targeted community."

If we are to incorporate Robin's suggestion then I would suggest that be done in an implementation guideline and be included, along with the definitions of terms which you had already begun and which need to be discussed today.

In the implementation guidelines, an explanation for applicants could include something like the grounds for objection do not include "this is a great idea and I should have got it first and I'm objecting because applicant A has" or "I believe I should run that string not the applicant and it should be given to me". There would also be no grounds for an evaluator to award the string to the objector -- if an objector prevailed, the string would become part of a "disputed name bucket" to be reapplied for at a later date. If the objector wanted to, they could apply themselves in future rounds.

I think there was general agreement from the small group that the new wording found above better captured the intention of the group. The challenge is to ensure that the grounds for objection (which is what I understand Robin to be talking about) require further work. This work was well underway but needs refining in light of the new text.

Just for clarity also, in the small group discussion, there was certainly general agreement that established institutions would have no prior claim on a word IF the applicant was making a generic application open to anyone to use. This recommendation only relates to applications that target specific users/communities and do so at odds with established institutions within that community. This is consistent, for example, with the GAC recommendation about geographic names which said that it was OK to do it as long as there was agreement from the appropriate national or public authority.

Could you please confirm for today's meeting?

Many thanks.


Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob

On 13 Jul 2007, at 05:07, Avri Doria wrote:


Ok, I will add that back in. I though that had been replaced by the group recommendation.

My mistake.


On 12 jul 2007, at 21.15, Robin Gross wrote:

Hi Avri,

The NCUC proposal with respect to Rec. #20 is to narrow it to technical or LEGAL objections. So valid legal claims opposing a string may proceed without over-burdening the decision making process and opening up subjective determinations or determinations that are contrary to law. Objections based on laws (such as trademark, unfair competition, misrepresentation, fraud, etc.) would still be within the scope of reasons for objections, but ones entirely unfounded on legal rights would not clog up the process and inhibit innovation.

We are also concerned that established institutions are given priority to own generic words over start-up innovators who do not misrepresent themselves to the public.


Avri Doria wrote:


I have updated the tables based on my understand from the meetings. Please send any comment, questions, corrections to the list.

Recommendation status:

I have added the Principles (including the new principle G) and the Implementation Guidelines for ease of reference.

Pending Actions List:

Next Meeting of New gTLD Committee

Scheduled for Friday 13 July at 1200 UTC

(There had been some discussion of moving 1-2 hours later, but this was never resolved. The timing needs to balance the earliness for California and the lateness for Asia/Pacific. Unless there is list agreement to move it, it will be at 1200 utc)

Small discussion groups for Rec 6 and Rec 20:

Liz will be coordinating these efforts. Please run any solutions that are approaching a level of consensus in the discussion group by the committee list, certainly no later then 12 July.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy