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

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

Thanks Tim.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:02 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx; Stéphane_Van_Gelder
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> Chuck, I'll let Adrian and Stephane speak for themselves, but 
> that was my intent - extended evaluation could be used to 
> resolve string similarity issues in round one, and that there 
> be no recommendation to form a WG.
> 
> Tim 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 26, 2010 8:59 am
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Let me try that again Stephane. What is it that you, Adrian 
> and Tim do not support? There are two items in my message: 1) 
> forming a WG; 2) making a motion that we put forward a motion 
> that just recommends allowing extended evaluation for string 
> similarity initial review decisions. I am fully aware that 
> all three of you oppose the the former but thought you are 
> okay with the latter. Am I misunderstanding that?
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:31 AM
> > To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> > Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion 
> and letter
> > 
> > 
> > Do not support what Adrian?
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:31 AM
> > > 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>
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >
> 
>