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

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

I like the idea of simply including the first resolution, without a reference 
to a WG at this time.

Quite apart from anything else, I just don't think it feasible for either 
volunteers or staff to take on another task at this stage.

Stéphane

Le 28 avr. 2010 à 05:23, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>