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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

On a personal note, I would be strongly opposed to such a motion and the 
inherent delays it implies.

I grow more appalled everyday at the tendency of this community to constantly 
try to open up new subjects of discussion, or reopen old ones, with apparent 
disregard for the fact that the only urgency left is to launch the new gTLD 
program, or risk ICANN simply loosing all credibility in the eyes of the wider 
world.

It is clear that all issues will never be solved by the first round. So there 
are 2 options: 1. Delay the first round until such a time as all possible 
avenues and problem areas have been explored, discussed and dissected. A 
praise-worthy and honest approach in theory, but one that is impossible to 
implement in practice (new problem areas will always surface as time moves on). 
2. Launch now and consider that the 4 years or more of work that's already gone 
into the new gTLD program ensures a sufficient safety net to allow for any new 
problem areas that might arise to be delt with on-the-fly.

Stéphane

Le 22 avr. 2010 à 07:10, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> 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 begin!
> ning 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>