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

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

Actually Stephane, the statement that should not be delays was really not the 
key element of avoiding delays.  The objective, deliverables and timeline were 
much more critical in that regard.

I like I said earlier, I am not opossed to the change to the motion suggested 
by Tim, i.e., just allowing for extended evaluation.  I just wanted to make 
sure if there was support for the working group that we had a charter ready to 
go so that there wouldn't be delays developing one and waiting for approval.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:50 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> Importance: High
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> I remain opposed to the idea of setting up a WG on this 
> topic. The charter you have drafted is very detailed, but I 
> do not see that simply stating that delays to the new gTLD 
> program are unacceptable helps avoid them. Time and time 
> again, we've seen charters and WGs form around the idea that 
> delays are unacceptable only to see them cause delays, either 
> because of a Board resolution, or because those in the 
> community that wish the program to be delayed pounce on the 
> topic being discussed as the perfect excuse to cause further delays.
> 
> The only way I would be comfortable with this motion and the 
> idea of a WG is if the motion explicitly states that the GNSO 
> is NOT undertaking this work for the first round, but instead 
> is working towards the long term new gTLD program.
> 
> I also think that would be sending a responsible signal to 
> the community that as far as the GNSO is concerned, no more 
> work should be started on 1st round topics, but that the 
> program itself can be continually refined.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 24 avr. 2010 à 16:35, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> 
> > In follow-up to the changes I suggested to the motion, I prepared a 
> > draft charter for a WG.  If we decide to include the part of the 
> > motion forming a special WG, it seemed to me that we need 
> to include a 
> > charter so that the WG could be formed and begin its work very 
> > quickly. As I think I have made clear, I do not think that 
> delays to 
> > the new gTLD process are an option. And Avri stated 
> basically the same 
> > position in her motion.
> > 
> > We need to decide whether we want to include the formation of a 
> > special WG in the motion but in the meantime, in case we do 
> decide to 
> > go that direction, it would be helpful if everyone reviewed 
> the draft 
> > charter and make any edits you think are needed.  I tried 
> to keep it 
> > fairly simple and included a timeline of about two months 
> from 20 May.
> > 
> > Remember, we need to submit our recommendations including a 
> motion to 
> > the Council not later than 12 May.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:03 AM
> >> To: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and 
> >> letter
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 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.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > <New gTLD Rec2 WG Charter Draft 1.doc>
> 
>