Re: [soac-mapo] A proposal: GLOS

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I see.  Thanks for clarifying.

Antony


On Sep 1, 2010, at 2:18 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
> 
>