[council] FW: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook

[Gomes, Chuck]

Per the resolution passed yesterday, please note the following.

 

Chuck

 

From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen at icann.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 3:03 PM
To: Kurt Pritz
Cc: Diane Schroeder; Gomes, Chuck; David Olive; Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder; olgac at fibertel.com.ar; Glen
Subject: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook

 

To: Kurt Pritz and members of the ICANN New GTLD Implementation Team,

CC: ICANN Board

 

The GNSO Council requests a change to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook. Specifically, we request that the section on "Outcomes of the String Similarity Review" be amended to allow applicants to request an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". We further request that a section be added on ³String Similarity - Extended Review² that parallels other such sections in Module 2.

 

This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it may be justified for applicants for a string which has been denied further processing based on confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually detrimental. This may occur, inter alia, in cases such as:

 

.           The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD) could apply for a string that is similar to an existing or applied for string in a manner that is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD) that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the detrimental confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid.

 

.           A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might be judged to be similar but their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion.

 

We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.

 

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council Chair Chuck Gomes

 

 

Glen de Saint Géry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

http://gnso.icann.org

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100716/72243bbc/attachment.html>