RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
- To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:05:12 -0400
Excellent point Jon. I don't think the intent was ever to give one
institution veto power. The expert panel needs to look at the total
picture, not just opposition from one impacted organization. So I think
we need to make this clear in our wording.
Like you, I also still like the use of the word "may" instead of "must"
for this reason and at least one person from another registry
communicated the same opinion.
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:39 AM
To: Philip Sheppard; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
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
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:44 AM
Subject: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20
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
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
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
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 ?