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

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

It appears to me that we are all converging on Tim's idea of simplifying the 
motion so that it just recommends adding the option of extended evaluation for 
confusing similarity initial evaluation decisions without suggesting formation 
of a WG.  Am I correct on that?  If so, maybe our focus should be on finalizing 
the motion.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:10 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not see extended evaluation as a temporary hack.  I see 
> it as a solution for round one and as all things in the 
> project something that is up for review before round two.
> 
> As I explained in that meeting, while there may be many 
> possibilities for such non detrimental similarity, they will 
> all be different and all be complex issues.  That is what 
> extended evaluation is all about - if we stack such 
> complexity in the initial evaluation if forces every 
> application to go through that more complex analysis and 
> slows down every application instead of just those that have 
> special needs.
> 
> In any case, as I indicated above, I am still assuming there 
> will be a review of the first round before the second round, 
> so the GNSO can come back to the topic and see what the case 
> really is.  And as anyone who has been following the various 
> synchronized/parallel TLD discussion in the IDNccTLD fast 
> track or in the IETF DNSEXT WG knows, this topic is not a 
> simple one to understand/resolve.  It will be important to 
> have the experience of the IDNccTLD fast-track as input to 
> any future discussion on this topic.
> 
> I can support Tim's proposal as well.  And while it is not 
> for me to give advise to the council on its management 
> prerogative on the prioritization of work items, I would 
> think that starting to work now on solutions for round two 
> might not be at the top of the priority list.  But of course 
> the council new priority process can deal with that issue.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Apr 2010, at 06:43, Edmon Chung wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>