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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I fear there are many "serious glitches that must be fixed" (however, they 
probably don't impact VeriSign directly).

I am against opening Pandora's box at this point through the fear of the 
precedent that this may create.

I support Tim and Stephane's comments here.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, 22 April 2010 11:49 PM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter


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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>