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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So, if I gather that correctly, we would put forward a motion that would do
both of the following:

1. Identify issue and suggest using extended evaluation for round 1

2. Form a WG to address the issue in depth NOT for round 1

Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:06 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> 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>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2837 - Release Date: 04/27/10
02:27:00