RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:43:59 -0400
Please see my comments below.
"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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:39 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Becky Burr
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
> In general I think it is moving in the useful direction. A
> few issues:
> 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.
I meant to add a comment on this but forgot. In our industry there are
lots of new organizations that have been along less than 10 years. The
exception you provided covers those but it seems to me that it is better
to have fewer exceptions and that 5 years accomplishes what we need,
i.e., to prevent an organization from forming just for this purpose.
BTW, I can live with 10 if most think that is better.
> 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
As I said in an earlier message, I don't think we need the extra step
you show below. My understanding from what you suggested was that ICANN
would perform the validation of the objector/objection and that to me
was one of the things I thought we were trying to avoid. Why not have
the external review do both steps? That really seems to me to be part
of the external review anyway. It sounds like we need to discuss this
> 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.
> 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.
I suspect that my suggestion here may be controversial. I don't feel
too strongly about it but thought it might be at least useful for us to
discuss it because it is similar to what the RN-WG recommended for
> 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
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> > 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>