ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:20:24 -0700

I've been a lurker on this list, actually don't even recall asking to be
on it but I must have. I'm not an expert on this subject but I'll risk
boring you anyway with MHO.

I have the same concerns Stephane does, one thing after another seems to
be cropping up that threatens to cause further delays. I don't think
this has to be one of them.

I believe the primary goal should be to not create confusion, and
potentially risks, for end users. Secondary to that is not mucking up
the goals to encourage competition and innovation by being too
restrictive with the "confusingly similar" test.

I don't think the string evaluators will be idiots, and I think no
matter how much time we spend trying to create objective criteria there
will be a certain amount of subjectivity involved, even necessary, in
the string evaluation process. So at most, I think the first resolve in
the motion below makes sense. The second is not necessary. With the
extended evaluation option, and inclusion in the motion of good
examples, don't we have what we need? Is another drafting team really
necessary to basically come up with what is already verbalized in the

At some point, we're going to have to trust that common sense will
ultimately prevail in this process, and realize that not everything is
going to be perfect first time out.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 22, 2010 8:48 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Avri
Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>

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.


> -----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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy