RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

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

Wolf,

 

I will let staff respond to your request but here are some excerpts from
DAG4 that I found that are related.

 

Chuck

 

"1.1.2.6 Extended Evaluation

Extended Evaluation is available only to certain applicants

that do not pass Initial Evaluation.

Applicants failing certain elements of the Initial Evaluation

can request an Extended Evaluation. If the applicant does

not pass Initial Evaluation and does not expressly request

an Extended Evaluation, the application will proceed no

further. The Extended Evaluation period allows for an

additional exchange of information between the

applicant and evaluators to clarify information contained

in the application. The reviews performed in Extended

Evaluation do not introduce additional evaluation criteria."

 

"2.3 Extended Evaluation"  . . . "An Extended Evaluation does not imply
any change of the

evaluation criteria. The same criteria used in the Initial

Evaluation will be used to review the application in light of

clarifications provided by the applicant."

 

"2.4.1 Panels and Roles

The String Similarity Panel will assess whether a proposed

gTLD string is likely to result in user confusion due to similarity

with any reserved name, any existing TLD, any requested

IDN ccTLD, or any new gTLD string applied for in the current

application round. This occurs during the String Similarity

review in Initial Evaluation."

 

 

 

From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:02 AM
To: Rosemary.Sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

 

Thanks, I won't ask for additional workload.

If "the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there was
not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity" is appropriately
addressed in the DAG then we woldn't have an issue.

Could somebody from staff give me a hint where this is stated?


Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich

         

        
________________________________


        Von: Rosemary Sinclair [mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Juli 2010 03:59
        An: Gomes, Chuck; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Betreff: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

        Hi all

         

        I also thought we were clear that the extended review is an
exception not the norm

         

        Perhaps we should review actual requests over the next 6 months
to see whether further clarification of guidelines is warranted

         

        Cheers

         

        Rosemary

         

        Rosemary Sinclair

        Managing Director, ATUG

        Chairman, INTUG

        T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889

        M: +61 413734490 

        Email: rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

        Skype: rasinclair

         

        Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
www.atug.com.au 

         

________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 8:16 AM
        To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

         

        Wolf,

         

        Speaking in my personal capacity, I do not understand the
concerns.  Extended review is by its design an exception procedure; an
applicant would have to request it for it to happen on a given
application.  It would then be the responsibility of the applicant to
demonstrate that there was not a problem of detrimental confusing
similarity. 

         

        Before considering additional work for an already overworked
GNSO, it would sure help to understand what the ISPCP issues are.  What
you say below gives no clue about them.

         

        Chuck

         

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:00 PM
        To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

         

        Dear councillors, 

        after repeated discussion the ISPCP constituency still has the
following concerns regarding the letter to be sent to Kurt Pritz.

        We understand that there are examples of string similarity which
would not necessarily would cause detrimental confusion and that in this
case - and only in this - an extended review should be granted to the
applicant.

        However strict rules must be set under which the extended review
is permitted ensuring the string similarity review is the normal case
and the extended one an exception. These rules are to be worked out with
participation of the community.

        The letter should express that the rules must immediately be
worked out by a small expert group in order to achieve community
acceptance.

         

        Best regards 
        Wolf-Ulrich