[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope of Terms of Reference

Mon Dec 4 05:09:30 UTC 2017

I like NIck's "less is more" version.

Maureen
ALAC

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Nick Wenban-Smith <
Nick.Wenban-Smith at nominet.uk> wrote:

> How about
>
>
>
> *Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding
> the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII and IDN
> form), including an analysis of the Review Procedure for Geographic Names
> contained in the 2012 Guidebook, evaluation criteria and potential grounds
> for objection.*
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Wenban-Smith
>
> General Counsel | Nominet
>
> T: +44 (0) 1865 332211 <+44%201865%20332211>
>
>
>
> Nominet is a trading name of Nominet UK. Nominet UK is a limited company
> registered in England and Wales. Registration number: 3203859. Registered
> office: Minerva House, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford Science Park, Oxford OX4
> 4DQ.
>
> This message may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must not read, use
> or disclose the contents of this email. If you receive this email in error,
> please advise us immediately and delete the email.
>
> Nominet UK has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that any
> attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses. However, Nominet UK
> cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software
> viruses and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before
> opening any attachment.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Carlos Raul Gutierrez
> *Sent:* 30 November 2017 17:44
>
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope
> of Terms of Reference
>
>
>
> Is there no way to avoid "treatment"????
>
> On November 30, 2017 9:24:22 AM CST, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> wrote:
>
> Jorge,
>
>
>
> In an attempt to combine your proposal and mine, how about the following?
>
>
>
> *Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding
> the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII and IDN
> form), including an analysis of the Review Procedure for Geographic Names
> contained in the 2012 Guidebook, evaluation criteria and potential grounds
> for objection.*
>
>
>
> We can add a footnote to that Review Procedure.
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *
> Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:11 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope
> of Terms of Reference
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I apologize for not being able to follow this work track as closely as I
> would like to, but other commitments are limiting the time I have for
> specific ICANN policy work…
>
>
>
> Without prejudice to coming back later with more detailed comments, I am a
> bit unsure about the direction we would be giving to the scope of our work
> if we put into question in abstract “whether” the non-objection rule should
> apply – in fact this apparently lays the focus on putting into question the
> applicability of that non-objection rule instead of asking how that rule
> works – its pros and cons etc.
>
>
>
> In fact, in Abu Dhabi there were many speakers at the F2F meeting (me
> included) who (1) expressly supported that rule as something that had
> worked pretty well in the 2012 round, (2) that supported a fact-based
> approach to analyzing what the shortcomings (if any) were with this rule,
> and (3) who advised against re-inventing that wheel.
>
>
>
> Hence, I feel we should formulate that section in the a more neutral
> manner as follows:
>
>
>
> “*Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations
> regarding the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII
> and IDN form), in particular on evaluation criteria and potential grounds
> for objection as well as analyzing the functioning of the non-objection
> requirement by affected governmental authorities provided for in the 2012
> round.”*
>
>
>
> I hope that this more neutral approach to the question may be acceptable
> to all as a working basis.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 18:50, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> With respect to the Scope of the Terms of Reference, please keep in mind
> that this section refers only to what will be discussed.  It is intended to
> make sure the right questions are being asked and the right topics are
> being covered.  It should also be neutral in nature to allow all sides of
> an issue to be discussed.
>
>
>
> Therefore, may I suggest a slight rewording of that first paragraph to the
> following:
>
>
>
> *Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding
> the treatment of geographic names at the top level (both in ASCII and IDN
> form), including whether such names require consent or non-objection from
> applicable governmental authorities, evaluation criteria and potential
> grounds for objection.*
>
>
>
> This shorter rewording moves the consent or non-objection part up in the
> paragraph from where it is now.  The new wording does not preclude any
> discussions on “approvals” nor does it implicitly endorse an approval-based
> model.  It (hopefully) is neutral and by virtue of having the word
> “consent” in the paragraph will naturally lead to discussions on how one
> obtains consent or non-objection if required.
>
>
>
> In addition, the term consent is already in the Applicant Guidebook, so it
> is a term that we are all familiar with.  And finally, according to
> http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/consent, the term “Consent” is synonymous
> with, “approval, assent, authorization, permission, allowance,
> acquiescence”, etc.
>
>
>
> This is being provided as a suggestion only to move forward the
> conversation.  It is not being provided in any official capacity.
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kris Seeburn
>
> seeburn.k at gmail.com
>
>    - www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171203/0bb1ef4f/attachment-0001.html>