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

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

Good suggestion.

Stéphane

Le 28 avr. 2010 à 06:20, Avri Doria a écrit :

> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>