Re: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I accept amendments as friendly except that one striking  the part
concerning the creation of WG, as I want to get some clarification about the
reasons (I am not saying that I consider it unfriendly amendment but I want
some clarification before).

Rafik

2010/6/3 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> Thanks Edmon.  Rafik, would you consider these amendments friendly?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:21 AM
> > To: 'Adrian Kinderis'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
> > Subject: 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
>
>