Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

That is, perhaps, something that is missing.  I think in the RN group  
discussion in any case, the significant objection did not mandate a  
rejection but mandated a review by an external review panel to  
decided whether the name was then put on a disputed list.  We have  
actually never merged that proposal into 20.  And while in my mind  
they were always related, they are not linked in the policy  
recommendations.
Is this something we should add to the implementation guidelines:

---revised proposed text for IG P

Upon receipt of substantial opposition, ICANN will send the issue to  
a standing external panel constituted for the purpose of reviewing  
substantial opposition by established institutions.
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.

----

a.

On 17 jul 2007, at 10.38, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> 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