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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

My view is that the original text is the text that has broad  
support.  If new wording had received broader support, then we could  
have substituted the new wording.  My inclination, as I indicated at  
the last meeting was to leave the existing wording, that has broad  
support unless we were able to reach consensus.
Having said that, if the new wording suggested by the discussion  
group has the same level of support or broader, then the committee  
could decide to substitute the new wording.
If agreement can be reached on an Implementation guideline in the  
committee, one can be added.
a.


On 13 jul 2007, at 01.31, Liz Williams wrote:

> 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.