[council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

[Gomes, Chuck]

Wolf,

 

I will let staff respond to your request but here are some excerpts from
DAG4 that I found that are related.

 

Chuck

 

"1.1.2.6 Extended Evaluation

Extended Evaluation is available only to certain applicants

that do not pass Initial Evaluation.

Applicants failing certain elements of the Initial Evaluation

can request an Extended Evaluation. If the applicant does

not pass Initial Evaluation and does not expressly request

an Extended Evaluation, the application will proceed no

further. The Extended Evaluation period allows for an

additional exchange of information between the

applicant and evaluators to clarify information contained

in the application. The reviews performed in Extended

Evaluation do not introduce additional evaluation criteria."

 

"2.3 Extended Evaluation"  . . . "An Extended Evaluation does not imply
any change of the

evaluation criteria. The same criteria used in the Initial

Evaluation will be used to review the application in light of

clarifications provided by the applicant."

 

"2.4.1 Panels and Roles

The String Similarity Panel will assess whether a proposed

gTLD string is likely to result in user confusion due to similarity

with any reserved name, any existing TLD, any requested

IDN ccTLD, or any new gTLD string applied for in the current

application round. This occurs during the String Similarity

review in Initial Evaluation."

 

 

 

From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:02 AM
To: Rosemary.Sinclair at atug.org.au; Gomes, Chuck; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: AW: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

 

Thanks, I won't ask for additional workload.

If "the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there was
not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity" is appropriately
addressed in the DAG then we woldn't have an issue.

Could somebody from staff give me a hint where this is stated?


Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich

	 

	
________________________________


	Von: Rosemary Sinclair [mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair at atug.org.au] 
	Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Juli 2010 03:59
	An: Gomes, Chuck; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council at gnso.icann.org
	Betreff: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

	Hi all

	 

	I also thought we were clear that the extended review is an
exception not the norm

	 

	Perhaps we should review actual requests over the next 6 months
to see whether further clarification of guidelines is warranted

	 

	Cheers

	 

	Rosemary

	 

	Rosemary Sinclair

	Managing Director, ATUG

	Chairman, INTUG

	T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889

	M: +61 413734490 

	Email: rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au
<mailto:rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au> 

	Skype: rasinclair

	 

	Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
www.atug.com.au 

	 

________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
	Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 8:16 AM
	To: KnobenW at telekom.de; council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

	 

	Wolf,

	 

	Speaking in my personal capacity, I do not understand the
concerns.  Extended review is by its design an exception procedure; an
applicant would have to request it for it to happen on a given
application.  It would then be the responsibility of the applicant to
demonstrate that there was not a problem of detrimental confusing
similarity. 

	 

	Before considering additional work for an already overworked
GNSO, it would sure help to understand what the ISPCP issues are.  What
you say below gives no clue about them.

	 

	Chuck

	 

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of KnobenW at telekom.de
	Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:00 PM
	To: council at gnso.icann.org
	Subject: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

	 

	Dear councillors, 

	after repeated discussion the ISPCP constituency still has the
following concerns regarding the letter to be sent to Kurt Pritz.

	We understand that there are examples of string similarity which
would not necessarily would cause detrimental confusion and that in this
case - and only in this - an extended review should be granted to the
applicant.

	However strict rules must be set under which the extended review
is permitted ensuring the string similarity review is the normal case
and the extended one an exception. These rules are to be worked out with
participation of the community.

	The letter should express that the rules must immediately be
worked out by a small expert group in order to achieve community
acceptance.

	 

	Best regards 
	Wolf-Ulrich 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100714/feb37396/attachment.html>