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

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

I was not suggestinf anything different than what Avri said: We are all part of 
the Public.

Chuck


Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent:   Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:     Mawaki Chango
Cc:     gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:        Re: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)

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