RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
- To: "Mawaki Chango" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:35:18 -0400
Please note my responses 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: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20 - New Wording Proposal
> > 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.
> 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.
Chuck: As I already stated several times, I support "may" but I am not
sure this has to be a show stopper.
> 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.
Chuck: I agree fully with this. One of the first things I noticed was
these missing pieces, but hadn't had time to respond yet.
> 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.
Chuck: Interesting point, worth considering.
> [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?
Chuck: I think it means closely related to the targeted community.
> f) Established institution
> I'd suggest "ICANN bodies", instead of "ICANN organizations".
Chuck: fine with me.
> --- 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
> > -----------------