RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Should a substantial objection from a single established institution be
sufficient to mandate a rejection?  For example, if the American Bankers
Association cites its substantial objection to an application for .bank
that is backed by all of the banking associations in the EU, must the
panel reject?  Under the proposed wording, there is substantial
opposition from a significant established institution representing a
sector or community for which the string is targeted.  Another example
would be the American Cancer Society opposing an application for
.cancer.  Must the panel reject regardless of all the other entities
lining up in support?  If so, wouldn't that put a registry applicant at
peril to every established trade association that wants a piece of the
pie and has veto power?  This is one reason why "may" may be preferable
to "will" in this case.  Alternatively, can we expand the phrase "a
significant established institution" to address this concern?

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

________________________________

From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:44 AM
To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 

 

Chuck,

I believe I agree with all of your points.

What you seem to be saying is that you are concerned that the current
wording of rec.20 is UNCLEAR.

But I do not see you really opposing the group's objectives I set out in
the annotated version of current rec.20

Is that correct ?

 

If so our task is easy: write a clearer text. (We don't need to do this
is one gangling sentence as we are writing a recommendation not law !)

How about this:

 

rec20 - revised

"An application will be rejected if it is determined that there is
substantial opposition to it from a significant established institution
representing a sector or community for which the string may either be
explicitly or implicitly targeted.

 

Opposition must be objection based: application staff will monitor
public comments and where appropriate explain the objection procedure to
an objector with standing.

 

The sector or community should be interpreted broadly and will include
for example an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic
community.

 

Explicit targeting means there is a description of the intended use of
the TLD in the application.

Implicit targeting means that the objecting institution makes an
assumption of targeting or that there may be confusion by users over its
intended use".

-------------------------------------------

To which we add these (revised) staff notes:

Substantial Opposition: A procedure including required documentation
will be prepared by ICANN. This documentation will include elements such
as a detailed description of the sector or community affected and the
nature of the harm it would cause that sector or community to have the
TLD granted to the applicant. 

 

Established institution: While the normal criteria should be for an
institution that has been in formal existence for at least 10 years, in
exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an institution that has
been in existence for fewer then 10 years. Exceptional circumstance may
relate to reasons such as: organization was reorganized or merged with
another organization, community is younger the 10 years.

 

Formal existence: This is defined by an appropriate form of public
registration or clear public historical evidence. Third party validation
by a government, Intergovernmental organization or well known
established institution (e.g. International Red Cross, a Bar
Association, a Medical Certification Body) may also be used.

----------------------------------------------

None of the new wording changes the main group's objectives but I hope
may capture the potential ambiguities. Does it ?

 

Philip