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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ray. If the current wording is the ultimate one the
committee decides to retain, I'd support your suggestion
(especially that it is so simple to make it clear in the
recommendation).

Current version:

"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."

Clarified version:

An application claiming the intent to service/target 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."

I think this is much clearer, thus, better.

Mawaki



--- Ray Fassett <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Muwaki, I think your question is sound.  I believe both the
> intent and
> meaning of Rec 20 - as well as your question - is much further
> clarified by
> including language such as:
> 
> "An applicant that claims to target a specific community may
> be rejected
> if..."
> 
> In other words, I think we need to clarify this recommendation
> into an "if,
> then" for purposes of objective implementation.  IF an
> applicant claims to
> target a specific community, THEN it may be rejected if there
> is substantial
> opposition..."  So, an applicant has to make such claim to
> trigger this
> aspect to objection that the spirit of the recommendation is
> about and
> provides boundary for implementation.  I propose for
> consideration making
> this clarification to the recommendation.
> 
> Ray Fassett
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:09 AM
> To: Mawaki Chango
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated tables and next meeting
> timing
> 
> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
>