RE: [council] IDNG Motion

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am ok with it.  I don't think it affects the substance of the issue.

Edmon

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 10:14 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; GNSO Council
Subject: RE: [council] IDNG Motion

 

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

 

Chuck

 

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.

2.1.1.1 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:

 <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf>
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf 

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 decisions.

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.

Chuck

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: 05/20/10
02:26:00