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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Overall this looks very good to me Avri but I think we should work on
the second resolution. Thanks for doing this so quickly.

Note that I inserted some comments below.  Here's an alternative for the
second resolution with the following three resolutions:

- Request that a special working group (Rec2 WG) be formed immediately
to assist the ICANN new gTLD implementation team in developing
recommendations for modifying the new gTLD initial evaluation procedures
to allow for extended evaluation of strings that are preliminarily
identified as confusingly similar and likely to cause confusion

- The charter for the Rec2 WG will be (insert link to charter).

- Request that the ICANN new gTLD implementation team make initial
modifications in DAG4 to allow for extended evaluation of initial
evaluation decisions regarding confusingly similar strings.

I think the charter should include the following: Initial
recommendations from the Rec2 WG are due by 17 June 2010; a 20-day
public comment period from 18 June - 15 July; final recommendations are
due by 30 July; develop 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 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; a stipulation that
nothing involved with this WG process should slow down the process of
beginning the New gTLD process.

Note that I left out the following because I was concerned about giving
the WG too much to do: "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."  If time permitted, I
think it would be okay for the WG to do this.

Chuck

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:11 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> 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,

Chuck: The meeting where this motion will be considered is on 20 May so
I do not think this works.

> 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.

Chuck: Is it possible for us to develop a proposed charter by 12 May?
That would be the best scenario but that is asking a lot.

>  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.

Chuck: I think we need to recommend a plan that can be realisticly can
avoid any delays.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>