RE: [soac-mapo] A proposal: GLOS

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

Antony,

 

I was not suggesting that the GAC be the arbiter but rather that the
GAC, if willing and able, be allowed to provide input to applicants in
advance to possibly minimize disputes after application.  Applicants
could do what they want after receiving GAC input and then the dispute
process would be used if needed.

 

Chuck

 

From: Antony Van Couvering [mailto:avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:09 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Evan Leibovitch; Stuart Lawley; Avri Doria; soac-mapo
Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] A proposal: GLOS

 

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