RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No attachment.

Adrian Kinderis
Chief Executive Officer
AusRegistry Pty Ltd
Level 8, 10 Queens Road
Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
Email: adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Web: www.ausregistry.com.au

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named 
recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged 
and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must 
not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have 
received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system 
and notify us immediately.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:49 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
Subject: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion


Hi Everyone,

Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from different 
people, I would like to make a number of changes to the Proposed Motion on New 
gTLD Recommendation (IDNG motion on clarifications for confusingly similar TLD 
string).

The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for a 21 day 
comment period for the letter before it being sent by the council.

Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different people, 
including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially conflicting with the 
IRT report.

Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes.  Below is a clean 
version for consideration.


Rafik,
I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly 
amendments? :-)

Edmon




Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2)
===================================================

WHEREAS:

• The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review 
option for  strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity 
and likelihood to confuse;

• The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback 
to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;

• The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various 
circumstances where applicants for 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; 


RESOLVED:

• A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 
regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy  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 an Extended Review under applicable 
terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String 
Review Procedure".

• ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later 
than 6 July 2010.

• The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding 
whether or not to send the letter.


PROPOSED LETTER:

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 an 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 confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request 
an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would  evaluate extenuating 
circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not 
actually detrimental. 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 gTLD with a 
conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) 
that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the 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 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 their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.