[council] AG changes reflecting council resolution 20100715-1

Kurt Pritz kurt.pritz at icann.org
Sun Dec 5 14:45:12 UTC 2010


Edmon, et.al.:

The Board considered that the changes proposed by the GNSO deserve proper consideration and may ultimately prove to be beneficial, but that they could not be considered a simple change to the policy implementation.  Issues that should be agreed upon include, for example, operational requirements or contractual conditions as safeguards.  Thus, the Board's resolution on string similarity was passed as noted at http://icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25sep10-en.htm#2.4, and the language in the proposed final version of the guidebook is in accordance with that resolution.  

The position arrived at and presented to the Board in September at the Trondheim workshop was essentially that the exact criteria and requirements for such a situation to be unequivocally fulfilled should be clearly defined and need to be agreed upon by the wider community.  This is detailed more fully in the Board paper posted at http://icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-1-25sep10-en.pdf.

In relation to the question about the GNSO's motion and corresponding letter recommending that exceptions be granted from a finding of string similarity/confusion, it emerged from discussion and consideration of the request that the criteria and requirements for operation of similar TLDs in a "non-detrimental" manner are not obvious or straightforward.  

The GNSO's request is also discussed in the comment summary and analysis on draft version 4 of the guidebook, http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/summary-analysis-agv4-12nov10-en.pdf, noting that this is a complex issue and should be subject to additional policy consideration.  ICANN supports additional work on this being undertaken in the GNSO.

I hope this is helpful and clear. I can answer additional questions.

Regards,

Kurt




On Dec 4, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Edmon Chung wrote:

> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Finally had a chance to look through the proposed final AG...
> 
> I refer to our resolution in June and July about Confusingly similar TLD strings and our request for the AG to be updated regarding the issue: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201006 (20100610-1) and http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201007 (20100715-1)
> 
> It seems to me (based on the redline version) that nothing to that effect seems to have been put in place, and the String Similarity review still says:
> 
> An application that fails the String Similarity review due to
> similarity to an existing TLD will not pass the Initial Evaluation,
> and no further reviews will be available.
> 
> 
> I wonder if anyone did find the changes relevant to our resolution... and whether staff can help explain what actions were taken with regards to the above resolutions...
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





More information about the council mailing list