RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Maybe the fact that "verifiable" might not apply to a certain
category may not be a sufficient reason to rule it out. Why not
cater for both by just adding an alternate qualifier to
"verifiable" addressing RyC's concern/wish by the same token?
Building on the active form proposed by Kristina, something
The objector must provide verifiable or supported(1) evidence to
allow the panel to determine that there would be a detriment,
and the extent thereof(2), to the rights or legitimate interests
of the community or to the users more widely.
(1) please, if such thing is available, replace by an adjective
that would suit (also) the case of prospective detriment or
rather actual detriment whose _effects_ will become _material_
only in the future.
(2) I think evidence is needed not only to establish detriment,
but the extent of such detriment 9may be replaced by a better
wording if not Ok.)
--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I had been thinking along the same lines, but drawing from
> 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
> 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP
> An alternative wording that may find common ground is to use a
> from civil law "the balance of probability."
> This makes more sense in an ex ante case such as this.
> h) detriment
> Evidence must be provided to allow the panel to assess that on
> balance of probability there would be detriment to the rights
> interests, of the community or to users more widely.