<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
- To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:48:55 -0400
I agree with you Stephane that delays are not an option but I disagree that
this is an issue that can be deferred because I strongly think that is a
serious glitch that must be fixed. Therefore, we need to find ways to fix the
glitch without causing delays. So we need other options than the two you list.
I will propose a couple for us to think about.
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:47 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
>
>
> 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 beg!
> in!
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|