Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Understood.   In that sense you're addressing the sort of 'Quick Look' 
provision thats in the DAG  
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/morality-public-order-quick-look-28may10-en.pdf
 )
--- such that a .SHOE application might not be held up by shoe haters

R
 
On Jul 12, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> 
> On 12 July 2010 11:37, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:
>  
> The main difference in your two ideas is that with Evan this decision rests 
> with the IO,  whereas with Antony it rests with a relatively large panel.
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive; I've already suggested two scenarios that 
> could involve both an individual and a panel;
> 
> 1) An advisory board that is consulted by the IO;
> 
> 2) An appeal process that could overturn an IO's decision to proceed (or not) 
> with an objection (but would not itself affect the evaluation of the 
> objection which would still be subject to the existing IO process);
> 
> It's my position that having an individual (and a transparent process) would 
> make the initial step (weeding out trivial or otherwise inapplicable 
> objections) much faster and less expensive.
> 
> - Evan
>