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

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

I think it would still be good to for the whole committee to know how
you worked it out Liz and to discuss whether "enforceable" should remain
in 3.

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 Liz Williams
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:56 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Agenda for New gTLD meeting -proposed
> 
> 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>