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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 25 Apr 2010, at 13:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I did not intend that Avri so please let me know what in it gave you
> that impression.


It was this:

> The DT discussed various circumstances where strings that may be designated 
> as visually similar may not be detrimentally similar and believes that both 
> factors must be considered in the initial string similarity review as well as 
> in any subsequent reviews that may occur as a part of dispute resolution 
> procedures if those occur.


which discusses the initial evaluation not the extended evaluation.  It was 
possible that one reading this could infer that changes needed to be made to 
the initial evaluation for such considerations.

That added to my reading that the Goals are not specific in regard to where in 
the string evaluation process, this analysis of detrimental similarity would be 
done is what led me to be concerned.

> Please suggest wording improvements.

In the instance quoted above 

s/initial string similarity review/extended string similarity review/

and in 

> 3.1 Mission, Focus Area(s), and Scope
> 
> The task of the Rec2 WG is to develop recommendations for general guidelines 
> that can be used in the new gTLD evaluation process to determine whether 
> there is a probability of detrimental similarity in two or more gTLD strings. 
>  The guidelines should provide assistance in judging whether strings that may 
> be appear to be confusingly similar might not be detrimental due to various 
> extenuating circumstances.

s/in the new gTLD evaluation process/in the new gTLD extended evaluation 
process/

and in:
> 3.2 Objective
> 
> The objective of the special working group is to provide recommended 
> guidelines for GNSO Council consideration that ultimately may be used in the 
> new gTLD evaluation process.

s/in the new gTLD evaluation process/in the new gTLD extended evaluation 
process/

Also, while suggesting modifications going back to the background:

> The IDNG DT noted that DAG3 does not allow for extended evaluation for the 
> case of initial string evaluation related to the issue of confusing 
> similarity of strings and recommends that the next version of the DAG be 
> modified to do so.  That then raises the issue with regard to what criteria 
> should be in the extended evaluation process.


Since I still suggest that the primary recommendation from this DT should be a 
letter requesting that an Extended Evaluation for Strings be added to the DAG, 
I recommend the following:

Insert a second sentence that says something like:

This GNSO Council has sent a letter to the ICANN Staff implementation team 
requesting that such a modification be made to the DAG.  

the paragraph would then read:

The IDNG DT noted that DAG3 does not allow for extended evaluation for the case 
of initial string evaluation related to the issue of confusing similarity of 
strings and recommends that the next version of the DAG be modified to do so.  
This GNSO Council has sent a letter to the ICANN Staff implementation team 
requesting that such a modification be made to the DAG.  That then raises the 
issue with regard to what criteria should be in the extended evaluation process.

And, of course, if the council decides not to make/send such a request, then I 
think the issue is probably moot and would as some suggest, need to wait for 
the next round.


a.