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

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

I think we are on the same page Avri although I am not opposed to
results that would allow for the initial evaluation to determine that
there is not detrimental similarity without going to extended
evaluation.  Note that DAG3 initial evaluation includes that
'detrimental' condition so that I do not believe that would be a change
to what is already there.

Please suggest wording improvements.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:50 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 Apr 2010, at 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> I am not sure if i disagree or not.
> I think we need to leave the initial evaluation alone. 
>  I think we need to allow for an extended evaluation.
> Is this what you are saying?
> 
> Why do we need a working group to do that?
> 
> I thought the WG was merely to help give some policy guidance 
> on the basis of a possible extended eval. 
> 
> > 
> > - 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.
> 
> Ok, but i would think a letter from the council requesting 
> this immediately as opposed to waiting for a WG to suggest it 
> might be more effective and less likely to cause delay.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> sure
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> ok.  This was just supposed to help the staff as opposed to 
> leaving this policy issue completely up to staff.  but I will 
> not object to making it a secondary goal.
> 
> As I said, I do not think a WG is required to ask for the 
> Module 2 change to include an extended evaluation, assuming 
> there is strong support n the council after Stakeholder 
> Groups have been consulted.  
> 
> The only reason I saw for a WG was to give policy advice on 
> what might be good reasons for allowing what otherwise 
> appeared to be visually confusing gTLDs (e.g. things like 
> synchronicity, prior agreement and restrictions etc...).  In 
> response to those who felt this WG would cause delay, I don't 
> believe this is the case, because this could really be work 
> that was done with the implementation team while they were 
> figuring out the guidelines.
> 
> The only thing I think that might delay new gTLDS, would be 
> to have to wait for a the WG to request the change to allow 
> for extended eval - and as i say, this should not need a WG.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
>