Re: [soac-mapo] Request for volunteers
I am also keen to work on a statement regarding the independent objector. However, we should be sure we are on the same page. There was agreement on the call last week that we do not want an independent objector, so that should be removed from DAG4. We have to remember to keep objections to new gtlds "objective" as per principle 1. If no religion, no govt, no community, no business, no cultural org, no person, etc. objects to a proposal for a new gtld, there is little grounds for expecting an "independent objector" to have any. That would hardly be an "objective" standard, if none of these interests objects, but the ICANN Morality Tzar can be secretly lobbied into filing an "independent" objection. So that is the direction I expect a statement from this group to flow. Is there any disagreement with this approach? Thanks, Robin On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Thanks Evan. I believe Richard is working with Bertrand on the community class of objections. We added it as a 15th thread today. Please comment on what Richard submits to the list.Regarding the Independent Objector, please draft a statement and/or recommendation for group consideration by end of the day on Thursday.Chuck-----Original Message----- From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:43 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: soac-mapo Subject: Re: [soac-mapo] Request for volunteers I would like to help with wording about the Independent Objector, as well as any changes to the community class of objections (if that is still being considered). - Evan IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
|