DotConnectAfrica Module -3

[DotAfrica Exec Director <support@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*Ethiopia:*
**
*Module 3*

3.1.1   With the current process defined, the potential for shutting our
the emerging IDN world of Internet users from participating via local
community efforts and be controlled by Western or global corporates who got
in early is very high.
Therefore, the current process as it is commented below could literally
allow the successful blocking of IDN application for a  "similar meaning"
and thus give  ICANN rights to that meaning in every language is very
likely.


3.1.2.1 If existing TLD operator successfully asserts string confusion and
the application is rejected the rejected string should not be given to
anyone else, inclduing the existing TLD operator who objected and won.

3.3.4 Selection of Expert Panels: In the case of IDN TLDs at least one
expert MUST be from  that linguistic/cultural community, preferably from the
main country that speaks/uses that language/script,and also a
fluent in that script/language.

3.3.5 Ddisputes should allow possibility of multiple hearings, to ensure
fairness,  Costs can be mitigated by having phone/conference call recorded
hearings.
3.4.1 The two recommendations regarding future new IDN gTLDs - one of them
in essence was explicitly that IDN gTLDs of "similar meaning" should not go
to existing incumbent registries in ASCII (or presumably by extension
another IDN
language/script), should be maintained and not be confused with teh current
applicant book of  "string confusion" issue.  See also Module2.

3.4.2 Legal Rights Objection:  The guidebook needs to state explicitly and
transparently that all existing TLD string operators can ONLY object via the
String confusion mechanism and not the Legal Rights objection mechanism.  In
effect existing TLDs for ICANN objection purposes are no longer "EXISTING
MARKS", assuming they are both in some cases.