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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think "extended evaluation" is an acceptable temporary hack.

But as mentioned in the call last week, I believe that this issue would
quickly become vey frequent, and should be treated as a "normal" application
and not an "extended evaluation" issue.

Also think it is ok to specify that the outcomes of the WG do not have to be
applied to round one.

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:31 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> Chuck, it seems to me that both Adrian, Tim and myself have already stated
that we
> do not support.
> 
> It feels like we're not being heard though...
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 26 avr. 2010 à 02:48, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
> 
> > 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>
> >>
> >>
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2833 - Release Date: 04/26/10
02:31:00