RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:48:52 -0400
The placement of the issue is not the issue I am addressing at all. I
have absolutely no problem in moving it away from process. The key in
my opinion is to make it clear that the objector has the burden to prove
"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
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:38 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
> your recollection is correct.
> The reasoning is one of clarity.
> Under "process" we are describing a process not grounds for a
> The element remaining here is what make the OBJECTOR
> themselves valid. (It is open as to who judges that.)
> Under the rest of the guideline, we are outlining the chain
> of reasoning the panel will follow in assessing the OBJECTION itself.
> Therefore the detriment wording belongs in this second part.
> Hope we are all happy with this.