[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Comment on Paragraph 1 of the Scope of Terms of Reference
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Thu Nov 30 15:25:42 UTC 2017
I respectfully disagree. This group should consider whether or not consent is an appropriate rule. The GAC cannot win this debate Jorge by trying to rule the question “out of scope” at the beginning.
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738 1739
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto: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
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.
On Nov 30, 2017, at 18:50, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto: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> 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: <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> jeff.neuman at valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
seeburn.k at gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
* <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 51490 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5