Re: [soac-mapo] A proposal: GLOS

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure I understand.  If the GAC is to be arbiter of what is acceptable 
or not, then why would the Board, not the GAC, be making decisions about what's 
sensitive or not?


On Sep 1, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I have been trying to avoid suggesting possible solutions myself and 
> certainly will not push the following but think I will communicate it for 
> group consideration and let the group decide whether it has any merit for 
> further consideration.
>  
> First of all let me provide some context.  Thanks to Mark Carvel, I just 
> reviewed most of the transcript from the GAC plenary in Brussels on this 
> topic.  In it the GAC representative from Greece suggested an approach for 
> GAC involvement with regard to sensitive strings.  I am going to describe 
> that approach because that is a GAC issue, but it did get my mind going in 
> the direction that follows.
>  
> Guidebook v.4 includes provision regarding community-based gTLDs and 
> government related strings.  It seems to me that some of the concerns of 
> sensitive strings may already be able to be handled  via the community-based 
> gTLD requirements.  That would not solve the issues some have for open gTLDs 
> but it possibly could cover a subset of them.  Guidebook v.4 requires 
> applicants of community-based gTLDs and those applying for government related 
> strings to provide statements of support from relevant entities.   What about 
> adding a recommendation in the guidebook that encourages applicants to try to 
> assess in advance of applying whether or not their desired string might raise 
> objections in certain communities or countries and to consult with possible 
> affected parties before applying to try to address the concerns and possibly 
> minimize disputes after application.  This would not be a complete solution 
> but might help some.  Maybe it is common sense that any applicant should do 
> this any way (I would like to think so), but it wouldn’t hurt to explicitly 
> encourage it.
>  
> Another idea would be to encourage applicants who are willing to submit any 
> strings that they think might raise sensitivity issues to the GAC in advance 
> of application for GAC comment.  If this was done, would the GAC be able to 
> respond in a timely fashion?
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:26 PM
> To: Stuart Lawley
> Cc: Avri Doria; soac-mapo
> Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] A proposal: GLOS
>  
>  
> 
> On 1 September 2010 12:22, Stuart Lawley <stuart@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> A list will not work for the reasons mentioned by Avri.
> There is little chance that the list will be inclusive enough to include all 
> derivatives and many would be submitters will be too squeamish 
> (understandably) to submit many of the outrageous terms linked to subject 
> like Pedophilia etc.
> 
> .... but not too sqeamish to be the subject of an $185K TLD proposal?
> 
> Nevertheless, it's a reasonable point. Perhaps a window could be offered, 
> just in case, that would give objectors a small period of time (say, 30 days) 
> from the time an application is made to register appropriate entries in GLOS 
> before the report is given to the applicant. This could happen in parallel to 
> other early components of the application (such as its checking against the 
> Clearinghouse).
> 
> This way, objectors would not necessarily have to think of every possible 
> disgusting string in advance -- just ones being proposed. It has the downside 
> of not letting applicants know in advance all the possible objections to 
> their string before they apply -- however they don't know that under the 
> current regime either. On the positive side, such a window would also address 
> Avri's concerns about the total size of the database getting too big since 
> many orgs may simply choose to wait until they see an objectionable 
> application to register their objection in GLOS.
> 
> - Evan
>