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

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

With so many things going on, we could defer forming a WG until after the start 
of the new gTLD program.  We could simply include the first resolution or we 
could make the second resolution say to start a WG later at some specified or 
unspecified time.  I am not advocating for any of these options, just 
suggesting alternatives.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:52 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>