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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Do you mean to suggest that I could submit public comment?

Mawaki

--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>