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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Avri

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
.....................................................

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:

> Hi,
>
> Ok, I will add that back in.  I though that had been replaced by  
> the group recommendation.
> My mistake.
>
> a.
>
> 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.
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> >
> > Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > thanks
> > > a.