<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] FW: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] FW: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:50:58 -0400
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcspEXe6piXqn+nFRwe1yzEJwLTKfwAiwCtw
- Thread-topic: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
FYI
Chuck
From: Diane Schroeder [mailto:diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:16 PM
To: Glen de Saint Géry
Cc: Kurt Pritz; Gomes, Chuck; David Olive; Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder;
olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Glen
Subject: Re: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to
Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
Dear Glen - the communication below has been sent to the ICANN Board for their
information. Regards, Diane
On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
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
Diane Schroeder
Director of Board Support
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx
Office Phone - +1-310-823-9358
Fax - +1-310-823-8649
Mobile - +1-562-644-2524
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|