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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

I still haven't seen any clarification to the point 1, as per
our "agreement" (with Kristina) at the one but last committee
call.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest the following wording for IG
P(h):

The objector must provide sufficient data supporting any
anticipated detriment in order to allow the panel to determine
the likelihood and the level of such detriment to the rights or
legitimate interests of the community or to users more widely.

Mawaki


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx> 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
> 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.
> >  
> > 
> > ---------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> 
>