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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> For clarity,
> it seems we are reaching consensus around this text.

Do you mean between BC, RyC and IPC?

1) I haven't seen any legal specification of the term
"likelihood," despite the concern I raised.

2) I haven't seen any issue or objection raised to the version I
posted previously (or any proposal trying to integrate the
suggested elements of substance and improve on the version,)
including the suggestion to insert a phrase about the extent of
detriment.

3) Adding the conditional to that - "there would be a likelihood
of detriment" - makes it even worse. I thought what we were
aiming at was that the evidence must be sufficient (I would've
added, verifiable where relevant) to determine that there will
be a detriment _for sure_ if application granted, the problem
being to determine if the possible detriment outweighs the
reasons (or possible benefit) for authorizing the TLD, etc. The
current formulation makes it sound like at that point, with and
despite the "sufficient evidence," the panel could only make a
probabilistic determination that, after the TLD is granted,
there might be, or there might not be, a detriment, and that
will then be the basis for rejection.  

Which I can't agree to, just for the records if you don't mind.

Mawaki

> It has the merit of being ex ante (future).
> It has the merit of using existing legal terminology.
> 
> --------------------------------
> 
> h) detriment
> 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 users more widely.
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 
>