[gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

This could be the general shape of a motion and letter.  I have used 
abbreviated language to get the idea out and have left off the flourishes etc...

a.


-----

Whereas:

o  DAGv3 does not include the option of extended evaluation for strings that 
fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse.

o  The IDN Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council (motion # here) has 
discussed various circumstances where strings that may be designated as 
confusingly similar may not be detrimentally similar.  This may occur, inter 
alia, in cases such as:

- example 1 on same registry (existing or new) application for a string similar 
to existing or applied for string (tbd - .com or .asia example?)

- example 2 on IDN application for existing LDH string where there is an 
agreement between applicant Registry and the Registry of record for the 
exsiting LDH string (tbd - .museum example?)

-  ...

o  The GNSO Council in its recommendation #2 intended to prevent confusing and 
detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the 
Internet


Resolved

o  A request be sent to the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team, and copied to 
the ICANN Board, requesting that Model 2 regarding "Outcomes of the String 
Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request extended review 
under terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: 
String Review Procedure".

o Request that the Drafting Team, in time for the 20 May 2010 meeting go the 
council, create a proposed charter for a WG to establish a set of guidelines 
that can be used in the extended evaluation of strings judged confusingly 
similar in the initial evaluation but which might not be detrimentally similar 
due to various extenuating circumstances.  The work of this WG could include 
resolution of issues such as the conditions under which a string may be 
confusingly similar but not detrimentally similar, recommendations such as the 
treatment of second level names in such similar strings and contractual 
conditions that may be necessary in such cases.  The Drafting Team  and the 
Working Group should take into account any Board or ccNSO resolutions related 
to similar issues in the fast track ccTLD process which is already underway.  
The Drafting Team should also include a stipulation in the WG charter that 
nothing involved with this WG process should slow down the process of beginning 
the New gTLD process.  The proposed charter should also include the stipulation 
that the outcomes be deliver  in July 2010.




-----

Possible note:

-----

To:   Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,
CC:  ICANN Board

The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant guide.  
Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity 
Review" be amended to allow applicants to request extended review under terms 
equivalent to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String 
Review Procedure".  We also request that a section be added on String 
Similarity - Extended Review that parallels other such sections in Module 2.

This request is seen as urgent because there are several conditions under which 
it may be justified for applicants of a string, which has been denied further 
processing based on visual confusing similarity by the initial evaluation, to 
request extended evaluation to evaluate extenuating circumstances in the 
applications that may make the application one where such similarity would not 
constitute detrimental similarity.

In the meantime the GNSO Council will constitute a Working Group to develop a 
set of policy guidelines to be used by the extended evaluation panel on 
similarity, in evaluating any applications that may request such an extended 
evaluation on string similarity.  The WG will complete its work by July 2010.