[council] Motion from IDNG

[Edmon Chung]

Hi Kristina,

> 1.  It's my understanding that the recommendation is not limited to IDN
> strings.  Is that correct?

While the issue may be more important/critical for IDN, it is correct that
it is not purely limited to IDN.

> 
> 2.  Does "not detrimentally similar" mean something other than "not
> likely to deceive or cause confusion" (DAGv3 2.1.1.1.2)?  If so, what?

I think the critical issue is to make sure the understanding is clear.  For
me at least, observing the progression of the IDN ccTLD fast track, I would
be worried that the issue might become another "glitch" in the
implementation where strict interpretation of the plan rules out certain
applications even as they were not intended to be ruled out.  As for the
difference, I think they are similar, but perhaps best left to the authors
of the document to respond. :-) 

> 
> 3.  The IRT had identified the possibility of "false positives" based on
> analysis limited to visual similarity.  It recommended that (a) the
> similarity analysis include similarity as to sight (visual), sound
> (aural), and meaning; and (b) a request for reconsideration process be
> created.  (See pages 19 and 46 of IRT Final Report, which is accessible
> at
> www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protection-
> 29may09-en.pdf .)   Did the IDNG consider these recommendations and, if
> so, why did it reject them?

Not sure what you mean... I think we had the IRT Final Report in mind when
discussing and do not think we rejected it.  The problem at hand is that we
want to make sure confusingly similar TLD strings (especially in the case
for IDN TLDs) not be ruled out for consideration when it is being applied
for by an applicant who also operates (or is applying for) the confusingly
similar TLD.  It seems to me to be the opposite side of the coin, rather
than conflicting with the IRT report.

> 
> 4.  Can you please provide a more specific example of the strings
> covered by the first example (* 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 Letter-Digit-Hyphen
> (LDH) gTLD in ASCII and a corresponding Internationalized Domain Name
> (IDN) gTLD that could be deemed to be similar but not cause detrimental
> confusion that the GNSO recommendation was trying to avoid.)?

wonder if this example might be easier to comprehend: ".cafe" and ".café"

> 
> 5. If I understand the second example correctly, the two strings are
> characterized as not being detrimentally similar because there is a
> unity of source by virtue of the agreement between MuseDoma and the
> applicant.  Is that correct?

Yes.  I believe that is the intent.

> 
> 6.  Does the IDNG recommend changing any other aspect of the Extended
> Evaluation procedure?

At this point, due to
1. not wishing to further delay the new gTLD program (and/or trying to
minimize the perception of such)
2. not reaching consensus on any other approach
No other changes are recommended.

Note that we did mention: "The IDNG Drafting Team also discussed the
possibility of creating a Working Group to further discuss the condition
under which such non-detrimental similarity could occur and the conditions
under which such similarity could be allowed. The Drafting Team was,
however, unable to reach consensus on recommending the creation of such a
working group at this time."


> More specifically, would the existing prohibition
> on materially changing the application apply and, if not, why not?

So it would follow that there is no recommendation to changing other
existing provisions in the DAG.

Hope the above helps clarify the issue better.

Edmon





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:02 AM
> To: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: [council] Motion from IDNG
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> After much discussion at the IDNG Drafting Team, and as updated in
> previous council meetings, we have identified a particular issue related
> to (but not exclusively caused by) IDN TLDs.  Below is a proposed motion
> for the council's consideration (also attached).
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> ================================
> 
> 1.0 Background
> In the GNSO Council's final report to the Board regarding the
> introduction of new gTLDs
> (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
> ), Recommendation 2 states, "Strings must not be confusingly similar to
> an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name." In the latest version
> of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 3 (DAG3), which can be found
> at
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf,
> the String Review step in the Initial Evaluation process includes a test
> to determine "Whether the applied-for gTLD string is so similar to
> others that it would cause user confusion" (Section 2.1).
> 
> Section 2.1.1.1 goes on to describe the String Similarity Review as
> follows:
> 
> "This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD
> string against existing TLDs and against other applied-for strings. The
> objective of this review is to prevent user confusion and loss of
> confidence in the DNS.
> 
> "The review is to determine whether the applied-for gTLD string is so
> similar to one of the others that it would create a probability of
> detrimental user confusion if it were to be delegated into the root
> zone. The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation
> is intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see
> Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of
> similarity.
> 
> "This similarity review will be conducted by an independent String
> Similarity Panel."
> 
> In its work on the topic of internationalized generic top level domain
> names (gTLDs), the GNSO IDNG Drafting Team (DT) discovered what it
> believes is a possible missing element in the String Similarity Review
> process that may be critical in achieving the objectives of GNSO
> Recommendation 2.   The DT discussed various circumstances where strings
> that may be designated as visually similar may not be detrimentally
> similar and believes that both factors must be considered in the initial
> string similarity review as well as in any subsequent reviews that may
> occur as a part of dispute resolution procedures if those occur.
> 
> The IDNG DT identified two cases that illustrate their concern and
> recognizes that there could be others.
> 
> The IDNG DT noted that DAG3 does not allow for extended evaluation for
> the case of initial string evaluation related to the issue of confusing
> similarity of strings and recommends that the next version of the DAG be
> modified to do so.  That then raises the issue with regard to what
> criteria should be in the extended evaluation process.
> 2.0 Proposed Motion
> Whereas:
> 
> * The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an option
> for an extended evaluation for strings that fail the initial evaluation
> for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; * The IDNG Drafting
> Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances
> where 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; * The IDNG Drafting Team also discussed the possibility of
> creating a Working Group to further discuss the condition under which
> such non-detrimental similarity could occur and the conditions under
> which such similarity could be allowed. The Drafting Team was, however,
> unable to reach consensus on recommending the creation of such a working
> group at this time.
> 
> Resolved:
> 
> The following letter be sent to Kurt Pritz, and copied 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 Extended Review under
> applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS
> Stability: String Review Procedure".
> 
> 
> 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
> 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 visual confusing similarity by the Initial
> Evaluation, to request extended evaluation to evaluate extenuating
> circumstances in the application that may make the application one where
> such similarity would not constitute detrimental similarity.  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 Letter-Digit-Hyphen (LDH) gTLD in ASCII and a
> corresponding Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) gTLD that could be
> deemed to be similar but not cause 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 LDH 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 not
> detrimentally similar.
> 
> 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: 271.1.1/2880 - Release Date: 05/19/10
02:26:00