[council] [Ext] Re: Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"

[Anne ICANN]

Thanks Ariel.  I wanted to know whether the ability of Point Quebec to
object is preserved until after the String Similarity Review.  (I can't
remember how this works.)  If not, it seems that a lot of confusion could
be created by having the next round go forward and forcing Point Quebec to
file objections and start negotiating with any third party applicant etc.
Do you know the answer to that question?
Thank you,
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com


On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 9:48 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Hello Anne,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the questions.
>
>
>
> If staff may provide some follow up, the “dependency” point mainly refers
> to whether the Next Round should wait until a solution is found to allow
> the applied-for “.québec” string to successfully pass String Similarity
> Review.
>
>
>
> Based on the current established rules, it is very unlikely that the
> “.québec” string – no matter whether it is applied-for by PointQuebec or a
> third-party – would be eligible to proceed. We don’t know this for 100%
> certainty until the string is actually being applied for, but the
> presumption is that the panel will likely find it confusingly similar to
> the already delegated .quebec gTLD. If they were variants according to
> RZ-LGR, “.québec” would be able to pass String Similarity Review, but the
> reality is they are not. The key challenge is to develop an exception to
> allow confusingly similar strings to successfully pass evaluation as if
> they were applied-for as “variants”.
>
>
>
> The general agreement we heard from the Council discussion in August is
> that there seems to be no quick or easy solution to tackle this challenge,
> and it will require further research / study to understand the scope of the
> problem and the potential implications of creating an exception procedure.
>
>
>
> Hope it helps clarify a bit more. Welcome Seb and others to chime in as
> well.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> *From: *Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 7:02 PM
> *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [council] Draft Guidance Statement on “.québec"
>
>
>
> Many thanks Ariel.
> To Sebastien and Council Members,
>
>
>
> I am trying to understand the part of the draft  letter that states that
> resolution of this policy issue should not be a dependency for the next
> round.  For example, if the next round proceeds, are we saying we expect
> .quebec to file a String Confusion objection to any third party application
> for québec with accent grave over the first e?  Or are we saying we think
> that string similarity review will disqualify any third party application?
>
>
>
>
> There appear to be some similarities between these issues and the issue of
> singulars and plurals which the Sub Pro Final Report treated in detail.
> That Recommendation is one of the 38 pending issues being handled by the
> Sub Pro Small Team as to the possible path to a solution which can be
> adopted by the Board.
>
>
>
> Would .quebec end up negotiating with a third party  applicant for québec  in
> order to have priority when the PDP on this issue is complete?  (No
> priority for .quebec if no exception is created.)  Is there potential for
> gaming here if no policy is developed before the next round?
>
>
>
> Alternatively, do we believe a policy process which begins after the idn
> Phase 2 report is delivered will likely be completed in time for the
> guidelines to appear in the Applicant Guidebook if an exception is created
> which is similar to the one created for .eu?
>
>
>
> Apologies as I do not have direct experience with String Similarity Review
> and its interaction with Objection procedures.  Just trying to understand
> what happens if no policy is adopted before the next round opens.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:52 AM Ariel Liang via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear GNSO Council,
>
>
>
> Following the discussion during the August meeting
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+2023-08-24>
> regarding “.québec”, the GNSO Council leadership, in coordination with
> staff, developed a draft guidance statement based on the general agreement
> from the Council. This statement is in response to EPDP-IDNs Team’s request
> with regard to whether the public comments related to “.québec” are within
> its scope to address.
>
>
>
> Please be so kind to review the statement attached. If no objection or
> concern is raised by any Councilor by *EOB Wednesday, 13 September*, it
> will be sent to the EPDP-IDNs Team as a formal guidance.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ariel
>
>
>
> Ariel Xinyue Liang
>
> Policy Development Support Manager
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230910/0d43e51a/attachment.html>