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

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

I believe we are past the point of being able to make changes.  The
document is being formatted for posting for a 20-day comment period.  At
the same time, such a suggestion could presumably be made during the
20-day comment period.

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 Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:08 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Kristina Rosette; avri doria
> Subject: Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)
> 
> 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.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>