RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me that this wording for IG P might change the process from
what we envisioned.  This would put ICANN in a role of determining
whether or not 'substantial opposition' existed, something that I
believe we wanted the expert panel to do.  After I look at all the
comments made so far on this, I will try to take another crack at
rewording.  I think we are going in the right direction.

Chuck Gomes
 
"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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 11:09 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>