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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Anyone can submit public comment.  I can't speak for Chuck as to what  
he was suggesting, but as far as I know we all remain part of the  
public even though we have already had the privilege of having a fair  
bit to say about the proposal.
a.

On 11 aug 2007, at 01.50, Mawaki Chango wrote:

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