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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

Yes, I that is correct as far as I am concerned. I will let Tim and Adrian 
speak for themselves rather than risk putting words in their mouths. I am 
opposed to forming a WG at this stage as I feel it will introduce delays. I am 
in favour of allowing ext eval for similar strings. I am also in favour of the 
Council saying in no uncertain terms that it is looking at this issue in depth 
for round 2 but does not want to start a WG for round 1 because the Council 
feels it is high time the new gTLD program was launched.

Stéphane

Le 26 avr. 2010 à 15:59, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> 
> 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>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>