[council] Amendment to IDNG Motion

[Edmon Chung]

oops.  here is the attachment.
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 3:31 PM
> To: Edmon Chung; council at gnso.icann.org
> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
> Subject: RE: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion
> 
> 
> No attachment.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> Chief Executive Officer
> AusRegistry Pty Ltd
> Level 8, 10 Queens Road
> Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
> Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
> Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
> Email: adrian at ausregistry.com.au
> Web: www.ausregistry.com.au
> 
> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named
> recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and
> confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use,
> copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this
> communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us
> immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 4:49 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'
> Subject: [council] Amendment to IDNG Motion
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from different people,
> I would like to make a number of changes to the Proposed Motion on New gTLD
> Recommendation (IDNG motion on clarifications for confusingly similar TLD string).
> 
> The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for a 21 day
> comment period for the letter before it being sent by the council.
> 
> Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different people,
> including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially conflicting with the IRT report.
> 
> Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes.  Below is a clean version
> for consideration.
> 
> 
> Rafik,
> I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly amendments? :-)
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2)
> ===================================================
> 
> WHEREAS:
> 
> • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review
> option for  strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood
> to confuse;
> 
> • The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to
> ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook;
> 
> • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various
> circumstances where applicants for strings that may be designated as confusingly
> similar in the initial evaluation may be able to present a case showing that the string
> is not detrimentally similar to another string;
> 
> • The GNSO Council in Recommendation #2 on the GNSO Final Report on the
> Introduction of New gTLDs in September 2007 intended to prevent confusing and
> detrimental similarity and not similarity that could serve the users of the Internet;
> 
> 
> RESOLVED:
> 
> • A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding
> a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy  to the ICANN Board),
> requesting that Module 2 in the next version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
> regarding "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".
> 
> • ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later
> than 6 July 2010.
> 
> • The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether
> or not to send the letter.
> 
> 
> PROPOSED LETTER:
> 
> 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
> “String Similarity - Extended Review” 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2909 - Release Date: 06/02/10 02:25:00
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed-Motion-New-gTLD-Recommendation-amended-2010-06-02.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17863 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100602/fa34a9e1/Proposed-Motion-New-gTLD-Recommendation-amended-2010-06-02.docx>