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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Mawaki

Thanks for the reminder to be specific.

Yes -- "My guess is, you mean the kind of string/application that does
> not claim to service ant specific community."
I would have thought that the applicant would be responsible for  
saying whether they planned on targeting a specific community but I  
will check.
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 13:59, Mawaki Chango wrote:

> 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.