Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Comments/Questions recording wordings in final report

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

The .brand one is significant enough for us to attempt to clarify it
everytime we get an opporunity.

CAS
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Some of you may have seen my comments earlier today with respect to the
> slides to be used in the webinar. A few of the issues have not been
> conclusively resolved, so I am bringing them to the attention of the whole
> WG, in the context of the report instead of the PowerPoint presentation.
>
> Any replies prior to the first webinar or preferably by Friday to allow the
> slides to be changed would be appreciated.
>
> These obviously also might have implications regarding revising the final
> report. I presume there will be typos and other things that are noticed in
> the next few days.
>
> Alan
>
> ==================
>
> 68.a and corresponding language in the Exec Summary
>
> This is related to the .brand prohibition. The wording in the final report
> says:
>
>  An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to
> reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as
> a "dot.brand"); We spent a lot of time on this, but I think we got the
> wording wrong. That would rule out .apple (a generic word intended to
> reference the computer company), but would not rule out .greenberg, the TLD
> that I plan to apply for my for-profit consulting company (it is not a
> generic word which is the key criteria for rejection as currently worded).
> Would also let in .ibm, .sanyo….
>
> Note that the reference to my applying for a TLD is a joke, but the problem
> is not. I haven't had the time to try to come up with specific wording to
> remedy this but will try.
>
> ------------------
>
> 71.b in talking about documentation to be submitted says:
>
>  Evidence of any previous project fund, especially if successfully
> completed; I don't have a clue what previous projects this may be talking
> about. Does anyone else know what this means?
>
> ------------------
>
> 71.c Says:
>
>  Recommendations regarding the ability to form a sustainable operation Does
> this mean "recommendations" in the sense of "letters of reference"?
>
> ------------------
>
>