ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] IDNG Motion

That is up to Edmon and Rafik but as one member of the IDNG I would be
fine with that.




From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:05 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] IDNG Motion


Is the IDNG willing to revise its motion to substitute "detrimental user
confusion" for "detrimental harm"?



        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:52 AM
        To: GNSO Council
        Subject: [council] 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

        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 >>>