RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know if there's a juridical definition for "likelihood",
but it's a common word that gives, I'm afraid, the impression
that there might be too much room for subjectivity. It doesn't
tell me that arguments that would not convince the whole world
as establishing "likelihood" will not once conversely be found
so by a panel,  depending on the interests at stake and on who
is on the panel.

Mawaki

--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.  
> 
> Kristina 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip
> Sheppard
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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.
> 
> so:
> 
> h) detriment
> 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.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
>