Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

In general I think it is moving in the useful direction.  A few issues:

1.

A question, why change the threshold of existence from 5 to 10  
years?  10 years is not a very long time for an established  
institution, especially since the definition does allow for objections.
2.
Also, in one of the earlier exchanges, it was noticed that we were  
not longer including the external review step.  the text you sent  
seems to go:
objection -> validation of objector/objection -> possible rejection

whereas i thought we wanted something like

objection -> validation of objector/objection -> external review ->  
possible rejection
I had suggested a paragraph:

> 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.
which wold come before the definitions.

3.
Also with the inclusions of ACs and SOs, perhaps if the don't have  
standing to object, they may have standing to validate the existence  
of an objector.  though personally i have no issue with them serving  
as possible vehicles for objections, especially those derived from  
public comment.
thanks

a.

On 17 jul 2007, at 18.17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> As promised, I reviewed what I hope were all of the recent comments  
> regarding Recommendation 20 and Implementation Guideline P and came  
> up with the attached version.  Please note the following:
> I used Philip's latest wording (after the change made from Jon's  
> message) as the basis for the first four paragraphs and used the  
> Word tracking function to highlight changes I made.
> I used Avri's suggested definitions as the basis for the last three  
> paragraphs and used the Word tracking function to highlight the  
> changes I made.
> In both cases above I attempted to incorporate suggestions made by  
> Becky, Mawaki and Jon as well as some thoughts of my own.
> I did not try to separate Recommendation 20 from Implementation  
> Guideline P so that it would be easy for everyone to see a more  
> holistic picture; I am assuming that it will be easy to separate  
> these once we agree on language.
> I added the following sentence to the definition of 'formal  
> existence': "The following ICANN organizations would qualify as  
> having formal existence: GAC, ALAC, GNSO, ccNSO and ASO."  I am not  
> sure that this would create an operational role for these  
> organizations; if it does, we may not want to do this.  But I was  
> trying to reconcile what the RN-WG recommended with what we are  
> trying to accomplish for this issue.
> I am sure that others will be able to greatly improve on the  
> wording and I welcome that.  The first goal should be to determine  
> whether the overall approach is right. If we can agree on that,  
> then it will be easier to fix the wording.
> Thanks for all of the teamwork on this.  Like Avri said in a recent  
> message, if it seems useful to have a call tomorrow, that is an  
> option; but maybe we can work this via email.
> 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."
> <Rec 20 Wording 17 Jul 07 cg.doc>