RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:58:21 -0400
I had been thinking along the same lines, but drawing from (surprise)
trademark law. Also, I think it's helpful to move to active voice where
possible so we can be clear about which actor has what responsibility:
The objector must provide sufficient evidence to allow the panel to
determine that there would be a likelihood of detriment to the rights or
legitimate interests of the community or to the users more widely.
[mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:49 AM
Subject: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
An alternative wording that may find common ground is to use a phrase
from civil law "the balance of probability."
This makes more sense in an ex ante case such as this.
Evidence must be provided to allow the panel to assess that on the
balance of probability there would be detriment to the rights or
interests, of the community or to users more widely.