ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

[council] IDNG Motion

  • To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] IDNG Motion
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:52:16 -0400
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acr4I4pzJb4DvzYDRk2Wkl6t2i52igAAAWdw
  • Thread-topic: IDNG Motion

Please note the following from DAG3 that is pertinent from a substance
point of view regarding the IDNG motion under consideration by the
Council today.  I added the yellow highlighting and the bold font for
emphasis of what I think are critical points in the current DAG. String Similarity Review

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.

Here's the URL for DAG3:

As you can see, Staff has already included the factor of 'detrimental
user confusion'.  I believe that is the key issue that the IDNG
identified and wanted to ensure proper handling in initial evaluation
process.  It seems to me that the above language tasks the independent
String Similarity Panel to evaluate not only visual similarity in the
initial evaluation but also whether in cases of string similarity
whether there is the probability of detrimental user confusion. 

One thing the Council could do is ask Staff if this is a correct
conclusion.  If so, then I think the concern communicated by the IDNG is
at least partially addressed, because I believe that this evaluation
step would appropriately satisfy the GNSO recommendations.  But the
question still arises as to whether there should be some sort of appeal
mechanisms for applicants when there strings are denied in the string
similarity initial evaluation step.  That does not appear to be the case
now because extended evaluation is not permitted for string similarity

I hope this helps regarding the substance of the motion and what I think
is the intent of the IDNG.  I am not sure whether it helps in any way
regarding the process issues that have been raised.


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