RE: [council] Additional questions for the GAC?
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Additional questions for the GAC?
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 23:00:54 -0400
- In-reply-to: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701CC810C@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acd9UqBJze0VuGZNTiOqUMIjB6o0YACfYd5A
- Thread-topic: [council] Additional questions for the GAC?
These are excellent questions. I have additional suggested questions,
all of which pertain to 2.1.
The GNSO Council has been discussing the process through which a third
party (or parties) could challenge a proposed gTLD. At present, the
relevant implementation guideline (8) calls for such challenges to be
resolved by external dispute resolution providers. Is the GAC
suggesting that third parties should, under such a system, be permitted
to challenge a proposed gTLD on the ground that it violates these UDHR
provisions or referenced sensitivities? If so, which third parties
would be qualified to assert such a challenge? What should they be
required to prove? Is there an existing entity that has the expertise
to resolve a challenge based on these grounds?
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:34 PM
Subject: [council] Additional questions for the GAC?
Here are some additional questions regarding the GAC priniciples
about new gTLDs that could be considered for our session with the GAC
this coming Monday morning.
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."