ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gtld-council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gtld-council] Re: Outcome of discussion on string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam

  • To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gtld-council] Re: Outcome of discussion on string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:22:08 +1000

 Forwarded from Council list:

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
Sent: Sunday, 10 September 2006 1:02 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on string
checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam

I am not sure if the definition of "confusingly similar" provided here
is clear enough to avoid contentious interpretations, and if it totally
reflects the discussions in Amsterdam. To my recollection, at the end of
the discussions there was a widely shared opinion that we should
restrain the confusion criterion to typo-confusion (i.e., in what the
user can see and what s/he can imply from it).

As explained in the meeting, everything in the root servers, including
IDN, is just ASCII-based codes (coding character strings), and I'm
assuming that there is no risk for a root server to make confusion even
if the coding strings differ only by one slight character. Thus, having
no reason to assume probable massive confusions based on the possibility
of a few user's mistakes (always possible in user behavior for whatever
reasons), the security and the stability of the Internet wouldn't be at
risk here.

Mawaki


--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Process for string checks:
>
> (1)   Staff will make a determination and can engage appropriate
> expert advice.
>
> (2)   Public comment (which may include input from Governments or the
> GAC) that is specific to the criteria for a new string.
>
> (3)   If staff think there may be an issue, then it is put to a panel
> of experts with appropriate background.
>
>
> String criteria:
>
> (a)   That the TLD string should not be confusingly similar to an
> existing TLD string.  Confusingly similar means there is a likelihood 
> of confusion on the part of the relevant public.
>
> (b)   The string must not infringe the legal rights of any third
> party.
> (consistent with current requirements of Registered Name Holder - see 
> clause 3.7.7.9 of the gTLD registrar accreditation agreement)
>
> (c)   The string should not cause technical issues (e.g not
> .localhost, .exe etc)
>
> (d)   The string should not be <controversial, political, cultural,
> religious terms> (develop text related to public policy issues with
> GAC)
>
> (e)   The string should not be a reserved word.
>
>
> Dispute resolution:
>
> (a) A dispute resolution process using independent arbitrators where 
> existing registry operators could challenge a decision made by ICANN 
> staff regarding whether or not a new gTLD string is confusingly 
> similar to an existing gTLD string.  If a string is successfully 
> challenged as being misleadingly similar, then no operator may 
> subsequently register it.
>
> (b) A dispute resolution process using independent arbitrators where 
> existing trademark holders could challenge the string, based on UDRP.
>
>






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>