I think the rec20 sub-group has done great work and support the new
formulation. I just have a issue with the structure. The good point
re material harm has been inserted under "process". This is the
wrong place. It should be captured with our own guidelines for
"substantial" (meaning in its pure sense "having substance,
existing, material" - not only measured by volume). So see proposed
edit below with a cut from process and a new point (h).
PS I've substituted detriment rather than "material harm" which is
a better word in this context. (And I believe this picks up
Mawaki's point too).
I hope the committee can adopt this friendly amendment.
Philip
Recommendation 20
An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that
there is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of
the community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly
targeted.
The remainder of the discussion focussed on the following items but
is not yet complete.
Process
§ Opposition must be objection based.
§ Determination will be made by a dispute resolution panel
constituted for the purpose (perhaps like the RSTEP pool of
panelists from which a small panel would be constituted for each
objection)
§ The objector must provide verifiable evidence that it is an
established institution of the community .
Implementation Guideline --
( A small information paper is coming out from the Implementation
Team on the place of public comments in the application evaluation
process but there may be an automatic response to public comments
that will alert public commenters to the objection process ) .
Guidelines
The task of the panel is the determination of substantial opposition.
a) substantial
In determining substantial the panel will assess the following:
§ significant portion
§ community
§ explicit or implicit targeting
§ established institution
§ formal existence.
§ detriment
b) significant portion:
In determining significant portion the panel will assess the
balance between:
§ the level of objection submitted by one or more established
institutions and
§ the level of support provided in the application from one or
more established institutions.
The panel will assess :
§ significance proportionate to the explicit or implicit targeting.
c) community
Community should be interpreted broadly and will include for
example an economic sector, a cultural community, or a linguistic
community. It may also be a closely related community which
believes it is impacted.
d) explicitly targeted
Explicitly targeted means there is a description of the intended
use of the TLD in the application.
e) implicitly targeted
Implicit targeting means that the objector makes an assumption of
targeting or that the objector believes there may be confusion by
users over its intended use.
f) established institution
An institution that has been in formal existence for at least 5
years. In exceptional cases, standing may be granted to an
institution that has been in existence for fewer then 5 years.
Exceptional circumstance include but are not limited to re-
organisation, merger, or an inherently younger community.
The following ICANN organizations are established institutions:
GAC, ALAC, GNSO, ccNSO, ASO (but this element requires further
discussion)
g) formal existence
Formal existence may be demonstrated by:
§ appropriate public registration,
§ public historical evidence,
§ validation by a government, intergovernmental organization,
international treaty organisation or similar.
h) detriment
Evidence of detriment to the community or to users more widely must
be provided.
.....................................................