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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agreed. I would find that acceptable.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 1:02 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>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>