RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20: updated text (minor revision)
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20: updated text (minor revision)
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 07:48:52 -0400
Thanks much Philip. I have just one question: is the term "detriment" a
recongized legal term? I believe "material harm" is. As you know, I am not
the right person to answer this. Assuming it is, I am fine with the changes,
understanding that we will incorporate the 'process' section in the Guidelines.
"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
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:51 AM
Subject: [gtld-council] Recommendation 20: updated text (minor revision)
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.
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.
§ 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 ) .
The task of the panel is the determination of substantial opposition.
In determining substantial the panel will assess the following:
§ significant portion
§ explicit or implicit targeting
§ established institution
§ formal existence.
b) significant portion:
In determining significant portion the panel will assess the balance
§ the level of objection submitted by one or more established
§ the level of support provided in the application from one or more
The panel will assess :
§ significance proportionate to the explicit or implicit targeting.
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.
Evidence of detriment to the community or to users more widely must be