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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am now comfortable either way.

Chuck Gomes
 
"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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:42 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Rosette, Kristina; Philip Sheppard; 
> gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
> 
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Philip's comments made me rethink the use of 'verifiable'.  
> I believe 
> > he is correct that 'verifiable' could be too high a hurdle.
> 
> As I've understood it, his objection only related to the 
> category of objectors who don't have historical records 
> necessary to provide *verifiable* evidence by the time of the 
> application being evaluated.
>  
> > Plus, I don't
> > think we want the panel going out to do external verification.
> 
> This is requested from the objectors, not the panel. 
> Objectors providing verifiable evidence does not mean that 
> the panel will have to go out to investigate and check that. 
> The documentation of the verifiable evidence should be enough 
> for the panel use.
> 
> >  In my
> > opinion, primarily what we want them to do is to weigh the evidence 
> > provided by the objector(s) against what is provided in the 
> proposal 
> > for the new gTLD.
> 
> Agreed, and that objective is not contradictory (and should 
> not rule out) the need for the objections to be grounded in 
> verifiable evidence where possible.
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> > 
> > Chuck Gomes
> >  
> > "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
> > Mawaki Chango
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:03 PM
> > > To: Rosette, Kristina; Philip Sheppard;
> > gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table -
> > new IGP (h)
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > like:
> > >  
> > > 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.)
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>