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

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

When I was writing the draft charter, it seemed to me that guidelines
might be useful for both the initial and extended evaluation because the
string evaluation in the initial evaluation also includes 'detrimental'
as a factor.  My intent though was not to include anything but visual
similarity in the initial evaluation portion as stipulated in DAG3.  At
the same time, there are no guidelines for determining detrimental as
far as I am aware in the initial evauation.  So wouldn't they be useful
there as well?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:18 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>