Re: [soac-mapo] Terminology DRSP (and more on Rec 2.1)

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 15 September 2010 12:57, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Thanks for clarifying Milton. So I think we may have divergence on that
> part.  I encourage others to comment so we can determine whether we have
> divergence on point 3 or not.
>


1. The expert panel would give advice/recommendation regarding a Rec6
objection.
Strongly prefer "advice". I would recommend adding specific bounds to the
scope of the advice, ie, that it be limited to applicability the
objection(s) on principles of international law. The intention here is to
explicitly deter inferences and (value) judgments

2. The Board would review that advice/recommendation and make a decision
on whether to approve the gTLD string.
Ditto.

3. A 2/3 majority would be required for a Board decision (pro or con).
Con only. A super-majority should be required to deny an application based
on these types of objections. Approval should be allowed by simple majority.
The policy must explain how to deal with situations in which a majority --
but not a supermajority -- of the Board oppose a string on these grounds
(ie, it can get neither a majority to accept nor a super-majority to reject)
Having supermajority pro *or* con would be even more complex.....

- Evan