RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion
oops. here is the attachment. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 3:31 PM > To: Edmon Chung; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff' > Subject: RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion > > > 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. > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2909 - Release Date: 06/02/10 > 02:25:00 Attachment:
Proposed-Motion-New-gTLD-Recommendation-amended-2010-06-02.docx
|