Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
- From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
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.)
--- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Could you please repeat the exact wording you are offering in
> comparison to the wording Philip is offering. I went through
> previous emails and was not sure exactly what you would prefer
> to see.
> On 25 jul 2007, at 09.54, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> > --- 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
> > detriment.
> > 3) Adding the conditional to that - "there would be a
> > of detriment" - makes it even worse. I thought what we were
> > aiming at was that the evidence must be sufficient (I
> > added, verifiable where relevant) to determine that there
> > be a detriment _for sure_ if application granted, the
> > being to determine if the possible detriment outweighs the
> > reasons (or possible benefit) for authorizing the TLD, etc.
> > current formulation makes it sound like at that point, with
> > despite the "sufficient evidence," the panel could only make
> > 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
> > 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
> >> rights or
> >> legitimate interests of the community or to users more
> >> ---------------------------------