RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The suggestion for removing that discussion was that it was not a useful 
statement for the resolution.  It described more of an status update from the 
drafting team rather than a resolution item.

 

The Council can always at a later date resolve to create a working group to 
look more in-depth into the issue.  Which I think is called for, but there was 
no consensus at the IDNG drafting team, most importantly because it could be 
seen as delaying the new gTLD process.

 

Edmon

 

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rafik Dammak
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2010 4:29 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Edmon Chung; Adrian Kinderis; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff
Subject: Re: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion

 

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

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2914 - Release Date: 06/03/10 
02:25:00