RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Rafik,

 

I note that Edmon already responded to this but thought I would add an 
additional perspective.  That particular issue didn’t really seem to be 
relevant to resolution itself.  In my opinion it was not essential to the 
background of what was being recommended but more a statement about an idea 
that the group discussed but did not reach agreement on.  In other words, I 
think it was extraneous to the motion.

 

Chuck

 

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 4:29 AM
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