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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with that as well.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 8:12 am
To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>


We hadn't specifically worded it that way, but I think that is what we
are talking about. I think I am fine if the motion is worded that way.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:20 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] an initial rough draft of a motion and letter
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Why aren't we just proposing a motion that sends a letter to 
> the Implementation Team asking them to add the Extend 
> Evaluation for similarity on the basis of the issues that 
> have been outlined.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 27 Apr 2010, at 23:23, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
>