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

Carlos Raul Gutierrez carlosraul at gutierrez.se
Thu Nov 30 17:43:45 UTC 2017


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<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or
>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>T: +1.703.635.7514
>M: +1.202.549.5079
>@Jintlaw
>
>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
>
>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<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, 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<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or
>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>T: +1.703.635.7514
>M: +1.202.549.5079
>@Jintlaw
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
>Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
>
>
>Kris Seeburn
>seeburn.k at gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
>
>*   www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
>
>[cid:image001.gif at 01D369C4.EC7603A0]

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20171130/81103f75/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list