ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gtld-council] Agenda for New gTLD meeting -proposed

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Agenda for New gTLD meeting -proposed
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:56:01 +0200

Hello Avri

You may want to remove item 4 -- I've worked out the question I had.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 26 Jul 2007, at 00:10, Avri Doria wrote:

Hi,

Agenda for our Meeting Thursday 26 July at 12:00 UTC.

Please send comment/corrections/additions etc.

I have attached the latest action item list and recommendations list.


Agenda (proposed

0 - Start of meeting (10 min)
    roll call
    stmts of intersts update
    agenda review

1 - review status of recommendations (10 min)
    confirm that current chart contains an accurate picture
     - this includes review of results from last meeting

2 - In IG (P) (20 min)
   - Use of 'detriment' versus 'material harm' in IG P.
   - alternate wording defining 'detriment'
     - h1) 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.

     - h2) detriment
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 (may be replaced by a better
       wording if not Ok.)

3 - In #20 (15 min)
   Is the objection panel procedure a matter of
    - binary (yes/no) decisions
    - or a mediation process
      (ref Bruce's email on Rec #20)

4 - Wording consistency between Rec #3 and rec #6 (15 min)
  (ref Liz's question)

5 - any new implementation questions that the staff has, (15 min)
  esp on numbers 6, 20, P and Q.

6 - review action items (10 min)
  - are other meetings required?

7 - other issues (10 min)


<action-items-new-gTLD-07Jul25-1.pdf>
<PDP-Dec05-recommendations-07Jul25.pdf>









<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy