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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Liz,

Would please confirm or correct my guess about what you mean by
"generic application open to anyone to use" in the following
sentence: "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."

My guess is, you mean the kind of string/application that does
not claim to service ant specific community.

In that regard, may I request that you include/specify in the
Implementation guidelines the way by which determination is made
as to whether we are dealing with one category or the other. I
have asked these questions before but I don't remember they were
addressed anywhere: is the category of TLD targeted by the
recommendation 20 determined based on the string itself (e.g.,
.bank for the banking industry) or by the purpose stated by the
applicant in the application materials? or do we have a
predefined table of categories of TLD available for application
(which would include TLDs that are intended for use by a
specific community or sector)?

Thanks,

Mawaki 

--- Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> 
>