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

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

I am not opposed to Tim's suggestion and I believe it is consistent with the 
way that the GNSO has operated with regard to new gTLDs.  By that I mean that 
we provided fairly high level recommendations and then asked Staff to implement 
them, leaving a lot of the work to Staff.  In this case, approving a motion 
that only includes the first bullet of Avri's motion (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") and 
leaves out the formation of the WG would in my opinion be similar to what we 
did with the original recommendations.  Of course, if we are really concerned 
about avoiding delays, it might be helpful to assist Staff in defining 
evaluation guidelines.

Note that I suggested some changes to Avri's motion in another email response.  
In a few minutes I am going to send a draft charter for a WG in case we decide 
to go that direction.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:20 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> 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 motion?
> 
> 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.
>  
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- 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.
> 
> 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
>