[council] FW: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook

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

Per the resolution passed yesterday, please note the following.

 

Chuck

 

From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:03 PM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: Diane Schroeder; Gomes, Chuck; David Olive; Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van 
Gelder; olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen
Subject: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 
of the Draft Applicant Guidebook

 

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 ³String Similarity - Extended Review² 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.

 

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council Chair Chuck Gomes

 

 

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://gnso.icann.org