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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

> Does this work for everyone ?

Not that it needs to work for me, since NCUC will file a MR
anyway, but if you ask me personally this is what I'd say.

Recommendation

I do think it still is worth keeping "may", not "will" (be
rejected) because there is the whole process with the panel to
go through before making the necessary determination, and then
the decision to reject. And we can't pretend to know 100% in
advance, solely based on the conditional clause that is in the
recommendation itself. 

Process 

3rd bullet:
* The objector must provide verifiable evidence that it is an
established institution of the community

Then the difinition of "established institution" is basically to
have been in existence for 5 years in the community. So I feel
that I'd miss (b) & (c) from the following text portion in
Chuck's previous version, _especially (c)_ or some very close
variance [it might be too heavy to get the whole portion in
here, but there may be a way to include the substance]:

Opposition must be objection based: the objector must
demonstrate, based on objective and verifiable evidence, that:
(a) It represents a significant portion of the community
(b) It is authorized, or has legitimate standing, to object on
behalf of the community, and
(c) The legitimate rights or interests of the objecting
community will be materially harmed or prejudiced by
introduction of the proposed gTLD.

Guidelines

Building on that, the task on the panel will not be only to
determine opposition but also the extent of the harm or
prejudice. In that regard I would prefer to see where
appropriate, a bullet saying something like:

*) the extent of the harm to the community, particularly in the
case of strings based on proper names when the introduction of
the proposed gTLD will leave no option to the targeted community
in terms of a fully equivalent identifier to chose as (future)
gTLD.

[this can be way more elegantly worded, but I have little time,
and you get the point.]

c) Community

"... It may also be a closely related community which believes
it is impacted."

I still don't understand closely related to what? to the string?
to a primairily targeted community?

f) Established institution

I'd suggest "ICANN bodies", instead of "ICANN organizations".


Mawaki


--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> I like Chuck's new approach very much and support the
> objective.
> On re-reading all our efforts I see we are all confusing:
> - an objective
> - a process
> - guidelines / definitions.
>  
> Taking Chuck's lead I attach a new proposal which separates
> out these three.
>  
> Does this work for everyone ?
>  
> Philip
> -----------------
>  
>