<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE> IDNG Motion</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">Please note the following from DAG3 that is pertinent from a substance point of view regarding the IDNG motion under consideration by the Council today. I added the yellow highlighting and the bold font for emphasis of what I think are critical points in the current DAG.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><I></I></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><I></I></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B><I><FONT COLOR="#808080" FACE="BookAntiqua-BoldItalic">2.1.1.1 String Similarity Review</FONT></I></B></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">This review involves a preliminary comparison of each</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">applied-for gTLD string against existing TLDs and against</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">prevent user confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">The review is to determine whether the applied-for gTLD</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">string is so similar to one of the others that it would create a</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">probability of</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><B> <FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">detrimental user confusion</FONT></B></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic"> if it were to be</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">delegated into the root zone.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic"> The visual similarity check</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">that occurs during Initial Evaluation is intended to augment</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">the objection and dispute resolution process (see Module</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">of similarity.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">This similarity review will be conducted by an independent</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FACE="Century Gothic">String Similarity Panel.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">Here’s the URL for DAG3:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN><A HREF="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf"><SPAN LANG="en-us"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Calibri">http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf</FONT></U></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri"> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">As you can see, Staff has already included the factor of ‘detrimental user confusion’. I believe that is the key issue that the IDNG identified and wanted to ensure proper handling in initial evaluation process. It seems to me that the above language tasks the independent String Similarity Panel to evaluate not only visual similarity in the initial evaluation but also whether in cases of string similarity whether there is the probability of detrimental user confusion. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">One thing the Council could do is ask Staff if this is a correct conclusion. If so, then I think the concern communicated by the IDNG is at least partially addressed, because I believe that this evaluation step would appropriately satisfy the GNSO recommendations. But the question still arises as to whether there should be some sort of appeal mechanisms for applicants when there strings are denied in the string similarity initial evaluation step. That does not appear to be the case now because extended evaluation is not permitted for string similarity decisions.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">I hope this helps regarding the substance of the motion and what I think is the intent of the IDNG. I am not sure whether it helps in any way regarding the process issues that have been raised.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT FACE="Calibri">Chuck</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
<P DIR=LTR><SPAN LANG="en-us"></SPAN></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>