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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Happy to do it now if you'll elaborate on what you're looking for.  I
truly don't remember. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:41 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gtld-council] Updated recommendation table - new IGP (h)

That was about the question/concern I raised on the last committee's
call you were on (but also prior to that on this
list) regarding the phrase:

"there would be a likelihood (of detriment)"

But I will be submitting a public comment and you or other members of
the committee will have another chance to address that, if you will.
 
Mawaki

--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I clearly forgot to do something in the mad scramble before my 
> vacation.
> What was it? 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 9:08 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Rosette, Kristina; 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.
> > >  
> > > 
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>