[council] FW: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Tue Jul 16 23:47:01 UTC 2019

Dear Keith and everyone,

Apropos of the specific point made by Jeff that “CCWG’s are not the place where policy is developed both with respect to the GNSO as well as the ccNSO.  If there are policies developed through a CCWG, they would just have to be referred to both the GNSO Council to commence a PDP as well as the ccNSO Council for their own policy development process”, staff thought it may be helpful (especially for newer members of the Council and community) to mention that in 2016 the ccNSO and GNSO Councils formally approved a Uniform Framework of Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups. The Framework specifically notes that a CCWG “is not the proper vehicle for formal policy development where such authority has been granted under the ICANN Bylaws to a specific Supporting Organization”, among other guidance relating to initiation and scoping etc.

You can find the final set of principles here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf. There is also a process flow diagram and user guide available here: https://gnso.icann.org/issues/ccwg/ccwg-recommendations-framework-principles-20nov17-en.pdf.

Cheers
Steve & Mary

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Drazek, Keith via council" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Reply-To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 17:53
To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [council] FW: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Hi all,

I am forwarding this email to the full Council list for consideration and discussion during our upcoming meeting. This was raised by Jeff Neuman during our Marrakech Council meeting as an outstanding action item from the pre-ICANN 65 webinar. Please see his email below, as flagged by Flip last week.

Thanks,
Keith

From: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 10:59 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; Pam Little <pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Cc: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Dear all,

This came up at the Sub Pro Leadership call today.
I think it would be helpful for Jeff and Cheryl if the GNSO Council takes a view on this.

Best

Flip

Flip Petillion
fpetillion at petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion at petillion.law>
+32484652653
www.petillion.law [petillion.law]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=qUl3yt6KhYRxWKAY2J6ZSNvNOnKnp8KjutdLAwiEBmQ&s=Q6ZCPinXV8foZp4H7Ne2GUzKY3wJu9vaXl_AUTkmvnk&e=>

[signature_939337310][petillion.law]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.petillion.law_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=qUl3yt6KhYRxWKAY2J6ZSNvNOnKnp8KjutdLAwiEBmQ&s=IwEQi_Ct_esDkt_3J_vf0DvvLQLOsorkJ-GDU3fmbGo&e=>

  Attorneys – Advocaten - Avocats

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 10 July 2019 at 22:51
To: Flip Petillion <fpetillion at petillion.law<mailto:fpetillion at petillion.law>>, "elsa.saade at gmail.com<mailto:elsa.saade at gmail.com>" <elsa.saade at gmail.com<mailto:elsa.saade at gmail.com>>
Subject: FW: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600
Mclean , VA 22102
UNITED STATES

T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079

CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders.  To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter.  In this case, please contact your client manager or admin at comlaude.com<mailto:admin at comlaude.com> for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed.  Thank you.

From: Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:21 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>) (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>) <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>; pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Keith,

It has occurred to me that although you and I chatted about this previously in Bangkok during the GDD Summit, we have not responded back to you formally on this subject.

Cheryl and I have had the opportunity to discuss this with the SubPro leadership team and we stand by our original position, namely, that at this point in time we would not support the creation of a Cross Community Working Group on this issue. There are several reasons why we do not believe that the creation of a CCWG is the right venue to have these discussions.

First, as you know, the topic of string similarity has already been the topic of a number of conversations within our Working Group (both in Sub-Teams and as a full group).  We have also had a section on String Similarity in our initial report and solicited comment back on the topic.  We are getting towards the development of our final recommendations on this topic within the next several weeks.

Second, our PDP, like all PDPs, is open to any one that wants to participate.  We do have some representatives from the ccNSO participating and more are welcome to participate should they wish to do so.

Third, the ccTLD Fast Track analysis of similarity as represented in its Fast Track Final report (https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_37897/idn-ccpdp-final-29mar13-en.pdf [ccnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ccnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_filefield-5F37897_idn-2Dccpdp-2Dfinal-2D29mar13-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=qUl3yt6KhYRxWKAY2J6ZSNvNOnKnp8KjutdLAwiEBmQ&s=Yempye16p6IV2CRk1W6MTbY8gYJ6zP7xqnrsjlp58S8&e=>) is incredibly different than the standard used by ICANN evaluators in the 2012 round.  Not only is this true with respect to the process followed, but also in the standards applied and the remedies available where similarity is found.

Fourth, in the gTLD space, string similarity should not be viewed in isolation, but rather in conjunction with the right to object by third parties.  The objection process is unique to the gTLD landscape and is not relevant to the ccTLD Fast Track.

Finally, CCWG’s are not the place where policy is developed both with respect to the GNSO as well as the ccNSO.  If there are policies developed through a CCWG, they would just have to be referred to both the GNSO Council to commence a PDP as well as the ccNSO Council for their own policy development process.  Thus, a CCWG would introduce a number of potential time delays into the process which is already well underway y our PDP.

With this note, we are not saying that some form of collaboration on the issues that may overlap, but rather to the extent that those discussions should take place, it should be in this already existing PDP.

Please feel free to pass this on to the rest of the Council.  We can discuss further with you at ICANN 65.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive , Suite 600
Mclean , VA 22102
UNITED STATES

T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079

CONFIRMATION OF ORDERS: Please note that we always confirm receipt of orders.  To assist us in identifying orders, please use the word ORDER in the subject line of your email. If you have sent us an order and have not received confirmation on the same working day (PST) it is possible that your order has not been received or has been trapped by our spam filter.  In this case, please contact your client manager or admin at comlaude.com<mailto:admin at comlaude.com> for confirmation that the order has been received and is being processed.  Thank you.

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2019 8:32 PM
To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>) (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>) <langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>; pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Thanks Keith.  Cheryl and I will discuss this week and let you know our recommendation.  As you may be aware, our PDP has already done some work on this issue, including several public comment periods and we have reached out to the ccNSO for its comments.

We would ask the GNSO Council give us time this week to discuss within the leadership team before making any commitments to the ccNSO.

Best regards,

Jeff Neuman

Senior Vice President

Com Laude | Valideus
1751 Pinnacle Drive

Suite 600, McLean

VA 22102, USA

M: +1.202.549.5079

D: +1.703.635.7514

E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.comlaude.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=qUl3yt6KhYRxWKAY2J6ZSNvNOnKnp8KjutdLAwiEBmQ&s=SquvJuQB1YcQ4pWfdZSNZSdlyhICcdMH4XSlv-eJyto&e=>
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D51D29.C46A40A0]

________________________________
From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
Sent: 26 April 2019 20:48
To: Jeff Neuman; Cheryl Langdon-Orr (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>) (langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>); pam.little at alibaba-inc.com<mailto:pam.little at alibaba-inc.com>; rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs

Hi Jeff and Cheryl,

I’m following up on Action Items from the GNSO Council meetings in Kobe.

During our engagement with the ccNSO, we had discussions concerning the Harmonization of String Similarity in gTLDs and ccTLDs.

The transcripts of that session are here: https://static.ptbl.co/static/attachments/200777/1552352565.pdf?1552352565 [static.ptbl.co]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__static.ptbl.co_static_attachments_200777_1552352565.pdf-3F1552352565&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=qUl3yt6KhYRxWKAY2J6ZSNvNOnKnp8KjutdLAwiEBmQ&s=4XqsmnUd5HmT1otjs9HyXj0s2F9xe3N1H-qrr98L4qw&e=>

The slide deck presentation is attached.

We need to coordinate on next steps. The ccNSO suggested the possibility of a CCWG on the issue. Please advise the Council on your views of next steps and the possible interaction of the SubPro group in this effort.

Best,
Keith

________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=qUl3yt6KhYRxWKAY2J6ZSNvNOnKnp8KjutdLAwiEBmQ&s=lnEwMuEZXSeKV6n3xVYQ1iaITLciExY7zu6BbLXtieQ&e=>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190716/326024bb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7394 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190716/326024bb/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7569 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20190716/326024bb/image002-0001.jpg>