Re: [gtld-council] new TLDs Final Report: Last Call

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I tend to agree with this.  We worked hard to achieve the level of  
support we did, and while changing wording for clarity is probably a  
good thing, adding content at this point seems problematic.
I tend to think that if even one person who was part of the broad  
support disagrees with a change because they believe it changes  
meaning at this point then it is something we should not do.
a.

(apologies for late answer, i keep losing the network)

On 30 jul 2007, at 20.14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> At this stage, it might be better not to make changes that are more
> substantial and might require additional confirmation with the full
> committee.  It seems to me that the wording that Liz included is
> flexible enough that it would allow implementation details that
> accomplish what your recommended rewording would do.
>
> 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: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 11:29 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Williams; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gtld-council] new TLDs Final Report: Last Call
> >
> > I was trying to accomplish something more - separating out
> > who investigates claims of support.  Evaluators in string contention
> > situations, and expert panels in objection situations.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 10:21 AM
> > To: Rosette, Kristina; Liz Williams; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gtld-council] new TLDs Final Report: Last Call
> >
> > It does appear to me that an edit is needed because the last
> > sentence in IG-G still reads like there is only one exception
> > and we now have two.
> > Couldn't the last sentence be revised as simply as this:
> > "Under these exceptions, Staff Evaluators will devise
> > criteria and procedures to investigate the claim."  All I did
> > was replace 'this exception' with 'these exceptions'.
> >
> > Kristina - were you trying to accomplish more than this?  If so,  
> > what?
> > 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 Rosette,
> > > Kristina
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:58 AM
> > > To: Liz Williams; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: RE: [gtld-council] new TLDs Final Report: Last Call
> > >
> > > A suggested amendment to IG G.  I propose that we amend the last
> > > sentence ("Under this exception, Staff Evaluators will
> > devise criteria
> >
> > > and procedures to investigate the claim.") to read:
> > >
> > > Under exception (i), Staff Evaluators will devise criteria and
> > > procedures to investigate the claim.  Under exception (ii),
> > an expert
> > > panel will apply the process, guidelines, and definitions
> > set forth in
> >
> > > IG P.
> > >
> > > This amendment makes explicit the limitation of the role of
> > evaluators
> >
> > > and incorporates the role of an expert panel in those circumstances
> > > where a formal objection has been raised.
> > >
> > > As amended, IG G would now read:
> > >
> > > Where an applicant lays any claim that the TLD is intended
> > to support
> > > a particular community such as a sponsored TLD, or any other TLD
> > > intended for a specified community, that claim will be
> > taken on trust
> > > with the following exceptions:
> > > (i)  the claim relates to a string that is also subject to another
> > > application and the claim to support a community is being
> > used to gain
> >
> > > priority for the application; and
> > > (ii) a formal objection process is initiated.
> > > Under exception (i), Staff Evaluators will devise criteria and
> > > procedures to investigate the claim.  Under exception (ii),
> > an expert
> > > panel will apply the process, guidelines, and definitions
> > set forth in
> >
> > > IG P and .
> > >
> > > (I did not include in the last sentence a reference to rules, etc.
> > > that will be developed for the panel because it's not clear
> > to me what
> >
> > > exactly will be developed and by whom.  I'm amenable to an
> > appropriate
> > > amendment.)
> > >
> > > Kristina
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> > > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 3:56 AM
> > > To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [gtld-council] new TLDs Final Report: Last Call
> > >
> > > Good morning everyone
> > >
> > > This is a last call for text, alterations and amendments
> > before I send
> >
> > > out the updated version of the Final Report.
> > >
> > > Kind regards.
> > >
> > > Liz
> > > .....................................................
> > >
> > > Liz Williams
> > > Senior Policy Counselor
> > > ICANN - Brussels
> > > +32 2 234 7874 tel
> > > +32 2 234 7848 fax
> > > +32 497 07 4243 mob