May 2010 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Tim Ruiz May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

Chuck, Some of the Councilors, including myself, were copied on a letter from Jeff Neuman to the Council regarding this motion. Is that going to posted to the Council list? I'd like an opportunity to discuss it and understand others' thoughts on it. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 2:09 pm To: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)registry.asia>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I agree with Avri's response. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:50 PM > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG > > > Hi Kristina, > Forwarding a note from Avri who helped write the document: > > > Hi Edmon - > > On 19 May 2010, at 10:12, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > > > Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is > the > applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the > strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement > between the > applicant and the operator of the prior string? > > > My single person opinion. > > I think that is pretty much up to the determination of the extended > panel. > Obviously the second example shows that it does not need to be the same > entity. It would be up to the panel to figure out whether a particular > instance of similarity is an instance of detrimental or dangerous > similarity. > > Had a WG been recommended and approved, this is part of what might have > been > discussed, i.e guideline for that extended review. > > Of course Chuck and the other contributing discussants are all on the > council and can all contribute their responses directly. > > a. > > (please feel free to forward or rephrase as you wish) > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] > On > > Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:28 PM > > To: council(a)gnso.icann.org > > Subject: FW: [council] Motion from IDNG > > > > > > That should be "Is the exception intended to apply . . .." > > > > Apologies. Too much multitasking and too little coffee. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] > On > > Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:13 AM > > To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO > > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG > > > > > > Many thanks, Edmon. This is very helpful. > > > > As to #2, would you please forward the question to one of the > authors? > > > > Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is > the > applicant for > > both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the strings by > virtue > of a corporate > > relationship or legal agreement between the applicant and the > operator of > the prior > > string? > > > > Many thanks. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] > On > > Behalf Of Edmon Chung > > Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:27 AM > > To: 'Council GNSO' > > Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG > > > > > > 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(a)gnso.icann.org > > > [mailto:owner-council@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.pd > > > f, 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 > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2882 - Release Date: > 05/19/10 > 02:26:00 >

1 0

FW: Open Letter to the GNSO Council: Accountability & Transparency starts at the Bottom
by Glen de Saint Géry May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

Forwarded on behalf of: Neuman, Jeff Dear members of the GNSO Council, This is being written in my personal capacity, not on behalf of Neustar and not on behalf of the Policy Process Steering Committee or PDP Work Team of which I am the chair. I ask that you send this to the entire council as I do not have posting privileges and there is no public comment period or forum for this issue (which as you will see is one of the issues I discuss below). I am writing to you today to express my concerns about a motion that you will be voting on tomorrow regarding the new gTLD process, particularly with respect to asking the staff to amend the Draft Applicant Guidebook. First at the outset, let me state for the record that I support the substance of the proposals and believe the DAG should be changed. However, despite the fact that I support the substance, I do not support this ad hoc process which I believe is extending the GNSO Council's role far beyond its role as an administrative coordinating body and into the realm of policy development or at best implementation. I have expressed my concerns to my stakeholder group, but because they support the substance of the motion and are afraid that voting no will somehow detract from the substance, I believe I will be outvoted even though some of those voting in favor do oppose the process which was used. I would have posted my concerns in the public forum for this motion, but none was created. Perhaps this may be an idea for future motions? The IDNG was formed last year to look specifically at the drafting a charter for a working group to look at the issue of whether there should be a fast-track IDN gTLD Process. My understanding was that the drafting team was unable to come to consensus on creating such a working group or what should be in such a charter. At that point, I believe the drafting team should have been disbanded, but that is not my issue for now. The drafting team continued to discuss IDN gTLD issues and came across what the members of the drafting team believed was a flaw in the DAG, one in which they are trying to rectify with this motion. I am glad someone found this flaw and I am glad that the members of the drafting team would like this addressed (as I do). However, the approach the Council is getting ready to take on this is one which sets a dangerous precedent for the future in setting policy at the Council level as opposed to bottom-up. The Council has before it a recommendation from the IDNG to send a note directly to the ICANN staff (and by cc: the ICANN Board) directing it to change the current version of the DAG to address this flaw. Rather than taking that recommendation and putting it out for public comments or opening up a comment forum to address the issues, it is unilaterally proposing to take matters into its own hands and pass this resolution. In doing so, the GNSO Council it will send a message to the ICANN Staff and to the Board, that it is a legislative policy making body as opposed to that of a policy manager/coordinator. I understand that many on the Council believe time is of the essence because the next version of the DAG is supposed to be released in the next couple of weeks. However, please take note that this is not the last opportunity to comment on the DAG. In fact, there is no public comment period to submit this to the staff now anyway. In looking at the Council mailing lists, it appears that changes are still being discussed to the motion and I am afraid it is being rushed through. How can an issue get to the Council and a resolution passed, without ever putting that issue out for a public comment? If Council members do support the substance of the motion (as I do), then the proper thing for the council to do is to encourage those members in support of the substance, including the IDNG Drafting Team, to send a letter on their own behalf to the ICANN staff either now or during a formal public comment period. Or, if it really wants to have a letter come from the Council to the staff, it should put out this motion for public comment until at least the next meeting to get input from the community. However, the Council should not be sending such a letter now to the staff or to the Board without getting such input from the community in which it is supposed to be serving. Doing so creates the false impression that at this point in time the motion has broad community support. It may have such support, but without putting it out for comment, you are not giving those that may oppose an opportunity to be heard. We chastise the ICANN Board for taking such actions, and should lead by example. As someone who is deeply involved in helping to reshape the PDP and WG processes of the future and one who has spent way too much time thinking about this kind of stuff, I believe that if the GNSO Council votes and approves this motion tomorrow, it will be not only going against the very fabric of what the Board Governance Committee stated was the role of the GNSO Council, but will be setting a very bad precedent for bypassing the policy process in the future. Thank you for considering my note. Jeffrey J. Neuman ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

1 0

FW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Rosette, Kristina May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

That should be "Is the exception intended to apply . . .." Apologies. Too much multitasking and too little coffee. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:13 AM To: Edmon Chung; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG Many thanks, Edmon. This is very helpful. As to #2, would you please forward the question to one of the authors? Is the exception extended to apply only where (a) the same entity is the applicant for both strings; or (b) there is a unity of source for the strings by virtue of a corporate relationship or legal agreement between the applicant and the operator of the prior string? Many thanks. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 6:27 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Motion from IDNG 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(a)gnso.icann.org > [mailto:owner-council@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.pd > f, 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

3 3

WHOIS Studies and new draft FY 11 Operating Plan and Budget
by Liz Gasster May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

All: I just wanted to let you know that the draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget recently posted for further community feedback includes a response to the GNSO Council WHOIS studies request in the development of the budget. Over $400k is now included in this draft FY11 budget for WHOIS fact based studies. For reference, please note section 4.8 last paragraph (p22) and appendix A.8 (p61). We also address it in Section 5: Budget as well as in Appendix C: response to comments. See below. In Section 5.2.3 Professional services (see page 41): · Economic and other studies, with an FY11 budget of $1.2 million, includes studies requested by the community such as: § SSAC requested studies on scaling and security § WHOIS fact based studies for policy development efforts as requested by the GNSO<http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-21apr10-en.htm> § Economic studies to complete New gTLD implementation In Appendix C, we recap the responses to comments (see page 70): Need for More Resources Funds for fact-based research to support policy development (M. Cade, B.Tonkin) More funds (over $710k) for fact based research to support PDPs. See section 5. Whois studies and additional resources (C. Gomes, IPC) More funds for Whois studies are provided in the draft FY11 document. . See section 5. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Liz

1 0

New RFP on proposed Privacy - Proxy "Abuse" Study released today by ICANN
by Liz Gasster May 19, 2010

May 19, 2010

All, Please note that ICANN today released an RFP to solicit costs and feasibility from independent researchers to conduct a WHOIS-related Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study which would methodically analyze a representative sample of gTLD domains associated with a variety of illegal/harmful Internet activities. By measuring how often these alleged and confirmed "bad actors" use Privacy/Proxy registrations, compared to the overall frequency of Privacy/Proxy registrations, this study would attempt to prove or disprove the following hypothesis: A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via Privacy or Proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity. Please see the following link for details: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm Responses are due by 20 July 2010, and I will be analyzing them and providing a report to the Council shortly thereafter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Liz

1 0

Public Comment: Draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget...Ready for Community Consideration
by Glen de Saint Géry May 18, 2010

May 18, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17may10-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: Draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget...Ready for Community Consideration 17 May 2010 The draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget is posted and ready for community consideration. Translations will be posted shortly as they become available. Draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget for Community Review<http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v1-fy11-17may10-e…> [PDF, 1.33 MB] ICANN's annual operating plan and budget describes the planned activities and required resources for the fiscal year. These activities are based on ICANNs strategic objectives. The Bylaws require that the draft FY11 Operating Plan be posted by the 17th of May to ensure adequate opportunity for community feedback. In mid February, an even earlier draft of FY11 plans was posted – the Budget Framework - and community members provided feedback in online fora, meetings in Nairobi, and on conference calls. The comments received and the summary analysis, and proposed responses to those comments, can be found here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/op-budget-fy2011/msg00012.html Based in part on that feedback, this draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget provides more data views and more detailed information than ever before. The draft achieves the key objective to keep the FY11 operating expense budget within a $59 million limit to ensure sound fiscal principles. A few highlights to note: * Some growth in internal security efforts – DNSSEC, Business Continuity; no funding in this fiscal year for some security initiatives such as DNS-CERT * More support for ICANN’s policy development processes The draft identifies areas that have been cut or slowed down due to budget constraints. Over a month remains before the final budget is submitted to the Board for approval. As always, the community is encouraged to provide feedback: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201006-en.htm#draft-b…. After further community feedback, and synthesis, the final FY11 budget is to be submitted to the ICANN Board for adoption at its Brussels meeting in June 2010. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment: Draft Advisory on the Effect of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Subsection 3.7.7.3
by Glen de Saint Géry May 18, 2010

May 18, 2010

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14may10-en.htm ________________________________ Public Comment: Draft Advisory on the Effect of Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Subsection 3.7.7.3 14 May 2010 ICANN has observed community comment concerning the interpretation of RAA Subsection 3.7.7.3. In order to provide clarity, ICANN is posting for public comment the following draft advisory http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/draft-advisory-raa-3773-14may10-… [PDF, 216 KB]. The forum will be open through 9 July 2010. One central clarification: if a Registered Name Holder licenses the use of a domain name to a third party, a licensee, the third party is not the Registered Name Holder of record (or "registrant"). This advisory also describes under what conditions that a Registered Name Holder is to identify the licensee and to whom. Community members are invited to review the draft advisory and comment on all aspects of the document. At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted, prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions, and post the final version of the advisory. The Public Comment Forum is located here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#raa-3773 Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Two motions need seconds
by Gomes, Chuck May 17, 2010

May 17, 2010

Please note that the following two motions for our meeting this coming Thursday still need seconds: "3. Proposed motion to adopt a Charter for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) Made by: Rafik Dammak" "4. Motion to approve the GNSO Council's expectations about size and composition of the Review Teams 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' and to approve the GNSO Council's response to the draft proposal on the call for volunteers representing SO/ACs for the Affirmation reviews 'Security Stability and Resilience of the DNS' and 'Whois policy' Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" The list of motions can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions . Chuck

3 2

FW: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] Motion from IDNG
by Gomes, Chuck May 13, 2010

May 13, 2010

On behalf of the RySG and in particular Cary Karp, I would like to propose a friendly amendment to the Motion Edmon made for the IDNG drafting team. Edmon - Will you accept this as a friendly amendment? Chuck -----Original Message----- From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of Cary Karp Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:05 AM To: REGYCON-L(a)NIC.MUSEUM Subject: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] Motion from IDNG > Here is a motion submitted by Edmon to the Council list from the IDNG WG. > Action on this motion is scheduled for 20 May. The passage, "... 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 ..." contains a significant error. Labels that conform to the host name rule are normally referred to as LDH labels. TLD labels do not designate hosts and are subject to the further restriction of being alphabetic only; they are not LDH, they are L, but that abbreviation is not used. Since A-labels (the form of an IDN that is actually entered into the DNS) contain both hyphens and digits, they are not currently legal TLD labels. This is regulated in RFC 1123, which is currently being revised to permit A-labels in the root zone. The revision is very carefully worded to restrict permissible A-labels to those that decode to non-ASCII strings which are equivalent to "L-only" in the previous frame of reference. The notions of D and H are deliberately not being internationalized in this process. Here's the relevant draft: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liman-tld-names-02.txt I therefore suggest something along the lines of, "... 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 ..." /Cary

3 4

Motions for the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2010
by Glen de Saint Géry May 12, 2010

May 12, 2010

Dear Councillors, Please note the motions that have been proposed to date, 12 May 2010, for the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2010 are posted on the Wiki at: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?20_may_motions Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0