IMHO objection != dispute
-Jorge
On May 14, 2013, at 1:00 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Going back to your original question, my point was that the whole ICC thing is dispute resolution process.
>
> avri
>
> On 14 May 2013, at 00:36, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
>> That's more or less the same interpretation I've on this side. I think that we may see some dispute resolution in cases where more than one applicant passes the initial evaluation for the same string. Not sure about amazon, but I'm sure that for Patagonia there is a single applicant.
>>
>> -Jorge
>>
>> On May 13, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Objections have been filed, and people have had to respond to them (or not as they chose), even if they weren't through the Initial Evaluation first.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking I don't think any ICC panels have been formed yet (not that I would know for sure), but I think of the process as having begun.
>>>
>>> On the list of pending cases: http://www.iccwbo.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=19327354883
>>>
>>> .AMAZON (Application ID: 1-1315-58086) ...................................................................................................... 22
>>>
>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254) .................................................................................................. 15
>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254) .................................................................................................. 26
>>> .PATAGONIA (Application ID: 1-1084-78254) ................................................................................................ 134
>>>
>>> I think them calling it a pending case mens it is in the process.
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 May 2013, at 22:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good point, Jorge, I think what Avri meant was that an objection to those strings had been lodged. Avri, can you clarify quickly?
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Jorge Amodio
>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:54 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support for
>>>>> diversity of views in our community
>>>>>
>>>>> Forgive my ignorance or I may have missed something but I don't think that
>>>>> there is any string from the first new gTLD batch in the "dispute resolution"
>>>>> stage yet, afaik that comes after the evaluation results, isn't it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 13, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The edited version of the draft is at:
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-
>>>>> B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the current
>>>>> version states it does not take a position on the amazon and patagonia
>>>>> applications. (Remember we are not commenting on individual applications
>>>>> in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I will be filing
>>>>> them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections. Thanks to
>>>>> Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to get a statement
>>>>> we can submit as a group.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Robin
>>
|
