[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Another Tool for Our Tool Box
kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 05:49:20 UTC 2018
I do not understand why letter of support or non objection is not required.
Is it a self and unilateral action that an applicant may initiate directly or through ICANN and send it to those
RGPA without any proof that it has been sent and after the expiry of a predetermined period reply or non reply would constitue agreement?
That does not work .
I would like legality and legitimacy and or validity of this proposal?
Sent from my iPhone
> On 22 Aug 2018, at 20:55, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought it might help if we had more tools in our toolbox. The ones we have aren’t very flexible (although variations could make them more so). Here’s something a bit different than any of our current tools, and it might address some ongoing concerns and lead to some possible compromises (i.e., some people less happy with this vs. others, and other people more happy).
> Notice and Opportunity to Object: In this process, the applicant for a string with geographic meaning would need to provide notice to each relevant gov/public authority (RGPA) that the string was being applied for. The application would go forward, but each RGPA would have a defined opportunity to object based on standards we would define and filed through one of the existing objection processes or a variation on an existing process. The right to object would expire after a set period of time. A letter of support or non-objection would not be required. We could have some minimum standard on what constitutes a RGPA, so that applicants would not be contacting every wide spot in the road.
> I look forward to thoughts on this or other alternative tools.
> Best regards,
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5