<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@SimSun";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The
suggestion for removing that discussion was that it was not a useful statement
for the resolution. It described more of an status update from the drafting
team rather than a resolution item.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The
Council can always at a later date resolve to create a working group to look
more in-depth into the issue. Which I think is called for, but there was no
consensus at the IDNG drafting team, most importantly because it could be seen
as delaying the new gTLD process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Edmon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Rafik Dammak<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 3, 2010 4:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Edmon Chung; Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org; Neuman, Jeff<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I accept amendments as friendly except that one
striking the part concerning the creation of WG, as I want to get some
clarification about the reasons (I am not saying that I consider it unfriendly
amendment but I want some clarification before).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Rafik<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2010/6/3 Gomes, Chuck <<a
href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
Thanks Edmon. Rafik, would you consider these amendments friendly?<br>
<span style='color:#888888'><br>
Chuck</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-" target="_blank">owner-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Edmon Chung<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> Sent: Wednesday, June 02,
2010 4:21 AM<br>
> To: 'Adrian Kinderis'; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'<br>
> Subject: RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion<br>
><br>
> oops. here is the attachment.<br>
> Edmon<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> > [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis<br>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 3:31 PM<br>
> > To: Edmon Chung; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> > Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'<br>
> > Subject: RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > No attachment.<br>
> ><br>
> > Adrian Kinderis<br>
> > Chief Executive Officer<br>
> > AusRegistry Pty Ltd<br>
> > Level 8, 10 Queens Road<br>
> > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004<br>
> > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710<br>
> > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970<br>
> > Email: <a href="mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au" target="_blank">adrian@ausregistry.com.au</a><br>
> > Web: <a href="http://www.ausregistry.com.au" target="_blank">www.ausregistry.com.au</a><br>
> ><br>
> > The information contained in this communication is intended for the<br>
> > named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain<br>
> > legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an<br>
> > intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any<br>
> > action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in<br>
> > error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us<br>
> immediately.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> > [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Edmon Chung<br>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:49 PM<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
> > Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'<br>
> > Subject: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Everyone,<br>
> ><br>
> > Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from<br>
> > different people, I would like to make a number of changes to the<br>
> > Proposed Motion on New gTLD Recommendation (IDNG motion on<br>
> clarifications for confusingly similar TLD string).<br>
> ><br>
> > The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for<br>
> a<br>
> > 21 day comment period for the letter before it being sent by the<br>
> council.<br>
> ><br>
> > Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different<br>
> > people, including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially<br>
> conflicting with the IRT report.<br>
> ><br>
> > Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes.
Below is<br>
> > a clean version for consideration.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Rafik,<br>
> > I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly<br>
> > amendments? :-)<br>
> ><br>
> > Edmon<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2)<br>
> > ===================================================<br>
> ><br>
> > WHEREAS:<br>
> ><br>
> > • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an<br>
> > Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial
evaluation<br>
> > for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse;<br>
> ><br>
> > • The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending<br>
> > feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;<br>
> ><br>
> > • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has<br>
> discussed<br>
> > various circumstances where applicants for strings that may be<br>
> > designated as confusingly similar in the initial evaluation may be<br>
> > able to present a case showing that the string is not detrimentally<br>
> > similar to another string;<br>
> ><br>
> > • The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on<br>
> > the Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent<br>
> > confusing and detrimental similarity and not similarity that could<br>
> > serve the users of the Internet;<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > RESOLVED:<br>
> ><br>
> > • A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June<br>
> 2010<br>
> > regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with<br>
> > copy to the ICANN Board), requesting that Module 2 in the next<br>
> > version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook regarding "Outcomes of
the<br>
> > String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to
request<br>
> an<br>
> > Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for<br>
> other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure".<br>
> ><br>
> > • ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments<br>
> > not later than 6 July 2010.<br>
> ><br>
> > • The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010<br>
> > regarding whether or not to send the letter.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > PROPOSED LETTER:<br>
> ><br>
> > To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,<br>
> > CC: ICANN Board<br>
> ><br>
> > The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant<br>
> > Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on
"Outcomes of<br>
> > the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to<br>
> > request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those<br>
> > provided for other issues such as "DNS<br>
> > Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a<br>
> section<br>
> > be added on “String Similarity - Extended Review” that parallels<br>
> other such sections in Module 2.<br>
> ><br>
> > This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under<br>
> > which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been<br>
> > denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the<br>
> Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation.<br>
> > This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances
in the<br>
> > application which may be such that the similarity is not actually<br>
> > detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as:<br>
> ><br>
> > • The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new<br>
> > gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or<br>
> > applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from<br>
> > a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant<br>
> > could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a<br>
> > corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed<br>
> > to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO<br>
> recommendation was trying to avoid.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > • A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant<br>
> > Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that<br>
> > allows for better service for the users in the geographical area<br>
> where the new gTLD will be offered.<br>
> > For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter<br>
> > into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version<br>
> of<br>
> > .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be<br>
> > judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental<br>
> confusion.<br>
> ><br>
> > We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
> > Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
> > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2909 - Release Date:<br>
> > 06/02/10 02:25:00<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>No virus
found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br>
Version: 9.0.829 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2914 - Release Date: 06/03/10
02:25:00</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>