<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dear Erika,<br>
<br>
This kind of insights would be very valuable indeed ! Can I suggest
you liaise with Becky as WP2 rapporteur ? Enhancing the review /
redress processes is very high on Becky's group agenda right now so
she can certainly use your help and insights. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 04/03/2015 10:54, Erika Mann a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADLdTjJOjCR1k0TcoKpwpiNh3bP5-dF0_ZxRfGUc2TbwiPW1YA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Avri, Colleagues - Happy to develop a first draft
proposal for input/ review based on WTO processes, taken into
consideration the ICANN specific obligations and values.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can do a first draft next week.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Erika</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Avri
Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033"> Hi,<br>
<br>
I think this is an excellent idea and have heard it
suggested before. Might be good to have someone lay out
the features of the procedure.<span class="HOEnZb"><font
color="#888888"><br>
<br>
avri</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 04-Mar-15 08:54, Erika Mann wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Reviewing
the comments made in this email thread, I
refer in particular to Chris LaHatte's
comment, posted below. I think he is right, we
need to establish a dispute resolution system
that values each case based on its individual
parameters - keeping international law
parameters and DNS specific legal parameters
into consideration. My idea always was to
'copy' the WTO dispute settlement procedure.
It is sufficient flexible, keeps involved
complainants and third party interests in
balance and it must respect global public
interest parameters as well. I have 15 years
experience in this area, happy to help. </span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Erika</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br>
</span></div>
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,242,204)"><span
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">(From
Chris LaHatte) "Accountability and a general</span><br
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">sense
is already being fully discussed. However the
more difficult issue is</span><br
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">designing
a dispute resolution system which has the
flexibility to discuss</span><br
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">the
issues graphically illustrated by this case.
Do we want to set up a</span><br
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">quasi-judicial
system within ICANN with a level of review or
appeal? Should</span><br
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">we
try and harmonise all of the existing review
systems so that there is a</span><br
style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">
<span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">common
procedure and a review/appeal level?" </span></span><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at
7:54 AM, Chris Disspain <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au"
target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><span
style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">Hi
Bruce,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span>
<blockquote type="cite">From my
understanding - <span
style="background-color:rgb(255,242,204)">the
complainant basically wants the
decision from the string
similarity panel that found
.hotels and .hoteis to be
similar to be reviewed again on
its merits. Neither the
Reconsideration Process or IRP
is currently designed to do
this. </span> I assume that
the applicants for .hotels and
.hoteis would want the ability to
make submissions and perhaps both
would agree that there is not a
risk of consumer confusion
because the two strings address
different markets (English
speaking versus Portuguese
speaking etc). The applicants
could even agree on a process to
avoid confusion between the two
strings. e.g. some mechanism
that would ensure that
Hilton.hotels and Hilton.hoteis
were managed by the same
registrant - but have content in
different languages.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>Absolutely. And if <span
style="background-color:rgb(255,242,204)">you’re
correct then the review would be of
the merits of an independent panel
decision. Whilst such a review
mechanism seems equitable to me I
think the key point is that this
would need to be built in to a
future new gTLD process, presumably
arising from policy review and
recommendations of the gNSO.</span>
Thus, I’m unsure that the real issue
in this case can be solved by the work
of the CCWG. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span>
<blockquote type="cite">I think we
are all keen to see the processes
and appeal mechanisms improved. </blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</span>100% agree. And that is work
that I think the CCWG can do. <br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Chris</p>
</div>
<div>
<div> <br>
<div>
<div>On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:42 ,
Bruce Tonkin <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hello
Chris,<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
And, as a separate
question, in respect to
your comments below
about mechanisms that go
directly to the merits
of a decision, what
decision would that
apply to in this case? <br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
From my understanding - the
complainant basically wants
the decision from the string
similarity panel that found
.hotels and .hoteis to be
similar to be reviewed again
on its merits. Neither the
Reconsideration Process or
IRP is currently designed to
do this. I assume that
the applicants for .hotels
and .hoteis would want the
ability to make submissions
and perhaps both would agree
that there is not a risk of
consumer confusion because
the two strings address
different markets (English
speaking versus Portuguese
speaking etc). The
applicants could even agree
on a process to avoid
confusion between the two
strings. e.g. some
mechanism that would ensure
that Hilton.hotels and
Hilton.hoteis were managed
by the same registrant - but
have content in different
languages.<br>
<br>
I could see how this could
be built into a future new
gTLD process.<br>
<br>
e.g the String Similarity
panel could first identify
strings that are potentially
confusing and should be in a
contention set - e.g.
.hotels and .hoteis. Then
a separate panel could be
convened (perhaps with three
panellists) to consider the
case on its merits taking
submissions from both
parties and any other
interested members of the
global public.<br>
<br>
Another common scenario we
have seen is where third
parties (ie non-applicants,
and not ccTLD managers or
gTLD operators) have
disputed that two strings
should have been found as
similar but were not - e.g.
.car and .cars. Again such
a situation could perhaps be
appealed to a larger panel
to consider on its merits -
I would assume those
bringing the dispute would
have some standing to raise
the issue - e.g. perhaps the
Car Industry etc. - on the
basis that they could be
materially affected by
having the two strings.<br>
<br>
I think it is important to
remember that this was a
major program that was
rolled out and there are
lots of learnings. Part of
being accountable is to
address those short-comings
in the next release of the
process. We have been very
careful about changing the
rules of the process while
it is underway. It is not
that dissimilar to planning
processes for building
approvals etc. When a new
area of a city is released
for development - the rules
may need to be changed to
prevent undesirable
developments that were not
originally foreseen (e.g.
buildings too tall, or
buildings not fireproof,
earthquake proof etc).
However the changes need
to be made through a
community consultation
process - rather than the
Board imposing new or
changed rules along the way.<br>
<br>
I think we are all keen to
see the processes and appeal
mechanisms improved. I
have personally spent many
hours reviewing
reconsideration requests.
As a general rule for
every loser in the panel and
dispute process - this has
resulted in reconsideration
as the cost to reconsider
versus the cost to apply
for a new gTLD was very
low. In quite a few of
those you could see fairly
clearly that the right
decision had been made on
its merits, and in other
cases I could see how a
different panel might make a
different decision on its
merits. Most of the
reconsideration requests
spend most of their
submission arguing the
merits of their original
case - and few have been
able to identify errors in
the process. <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<span class="">
<hr
style="border:none;color:#909090;background-color:#b0b0b0;min-height:1px;width:99%">
<table style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
border="0"> </a> </td>
<td>
<p
style="color:#3d4d5a;font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica";font-size:12pt">
This email has been checked for viruses by
Avast antivirus software. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.avast.com/" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
</span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: +33 1 39 30 83 06
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>