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

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

No worries, thanks. I quickly went through the report last week
and made note to myself about two other points I'd also like to
make. I'll elaborate on them all at once when I have a moment
toward the end of the month... Procrastinating, as usual.

Mawaki

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

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