Re: [council] Motion from IDNG

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I second the motion,

Rafik

2010/5/12 Edmon Chung <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> Hi Everyone,
>
> After much discussion at the IDNG Drafting Team, and as updated in previous
> council meetings, we have identified a particular issue related to (but not
> exclusively caused by) IDN TLDs.  Below is a proposed motion for the
> council's consideration (also attached).
>
> Edmon
>
>
> ================================
>
> 1.0 Background
> In the GNSO Council’s final report to the Board regarding the introduction
> of new gTLDs (
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm ),
> Recommendation 2 states, “Strings must not be confusingly similar to an
> existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name.” In the latest version of the
> Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3 (DAG3), which can be found at
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf,
> the String Review step in the Initial Evaluation process includes a test to
> determine “Whether the applied-for gTLD string is so similar to others that
> it would cause user confusion” (Section 2.1).
>
> Section 2.1.1.1 goes on to describe the String Similarity Review as
> follows:
>
> “This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD
> string against existing TLDs and against other applied-for strings. The
> objective of this review is to prevent user confusion and loss of confidence
> in the DNS.
>
> “The review is to determine whether the applied-for gTLD string is so
> similar to one of the others that it would create a probability of
> detrimental user confusion if it were to be delegated into the root zone.
> The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is
> intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see Module
> 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of similarity.
>
> “This similarity review will be conducted by an independent String
> Similarity Panel.”
>
> In its work on the topic of internationalized generic top level domain
> names (gTLDs), the GNSO IDNG Drafting Team (DT) discovered what it believes
> is a possible missing element in the String Similarity Review process that
> may be critical in achieving the objectives of GNSO Recommendation 2.   The
> DT discussed various circumstances where strings that may be designated as
> visually similar may not be detrimentally similar and believes that both
> factors must be considered in the initial string similarity review as well
> as in any subsequent reviews that may occur as a part of dispute resolution
> procedures if those occur.
>
> The IDNG DT identified two cases that illustrate their concern and
> recognizes that there could be others.
>
> The IDNG DT noted that DAG3 does not allow for extended evaluation for the
> case of initial string evaluation related to the issue of confusing
> similarity of strings and recommends that the next version of the DAG be
> modified to do so.  That then raises the issue with regard to what criteria
> should be in the extended evaluation process.
> 2.0 Proposed Motion
> Whereas:
>
> • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an option for
> an extended evaluation for strings that fail the initial evaluation for
> confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse;
> • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed
> various circumstances where strings that may be designated as confusingly
> similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that
> the string is not detrimentally similar to another string;
> • The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the
> Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing
> and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of
> the Internet;
> • The IDNG Drafting Team also discussed the possibility of creating a
> Working Group to further discuss the condition under which such
> non-detrimental similarity could occur and the conditions under which such
> similarity could be allowed. The Drafting Team was, however, unable to reach
> consensus on recommending the creation of such a working group at this time.
>
> Resolved:
>
> The following letter be sent to Kurt Pritz, and copied to the ICANN Board,
> requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant
> Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to
> allow applicants to request Extended Review under applicable terms similar
> to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review
> Procedure".
>
>
> 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
> Guidebook.  Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the
> String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request Extended
> Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues
> such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure".  We further 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 conditions under which it
> may be justified for applicants for 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
> application that may make the application one where such similarity would
> not constitute detrimental similarity.  This may occur, inter alia, in cases
> such as:
>
> • The same registry operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD)
> could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for
> string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of
> view.  For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a
> Letter-Digit-Hyphen (LDH) gTLD in ASCII and a corresponding
> Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) gTLD that could be deemed to be similar
> but not cause detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying
> to avoid.
> • A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry
> Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing LDH gTLD that allows for
> better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD
> will be offered.  For example, MuseDoma, the registry operator for .museum
> could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN
> version of .museum for a specific language community.  The two strings might
> be judged to be similar but not detrimentally similar.
>
> We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO council request.
>
>
>
>
>