Wolf,
I will let staff respond to your request but here are some
excerpts from DAG4 that I found that are related.
Chuck
“1.1.2.6
Extended Evaluation
Extended Evaluation is
available only to certain applicants
that do not pass Initial
Evaluation.
Applicants failing
certain elements of the Initial Evaluation
can request an Extended
Evaluation. If the applicant does
not pass Initial
Evaluation and does not expressly request
an Extended Evaluation,
the application will proceed no
further. The Extended Evaluation
period allows for an
additional exchange of
information between the
applicant and evaluators
to clarify information contained
in the application. The
reviews performed in Extended
Evaluation do not introduce additional evaluation criteria.”
“2.3 Extended Evaluation” . . . “An Extended
Evaluation does not imply any change of the
evaluation criteria. The same
criteria used in the Initial
Evaluation will be used to review the
application in light of
clarifications
provided by the applicant.”
“2.4.1 Panels
and Roles
The String
Similarity Panel will assess whether a proposed
gTLD string is likely to
result in user confusion due to similarity
with any reserved name,
any existing TLD, any requested
IDN ccTLD, or any new
gTLD string applied for in the current
application round. This
occurs during the String Similarity
review in Initial Evaluation.”
From: KnobenW@telekom.de
[mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 6:02 AM
To: Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au; Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: AW: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
Thanks, I won't ask for additional workload.
If "the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there
was not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity" is appropriately
addressed in the DAG then we woldn't have an issue.
Could
somebody from staff give me a hint where this is stated?
Von: Rosemary
Sinclair [mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Juli 2010 03:59
An: Gomes, Chuck; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
Hi all
I also thought we were clear that the extended review is an
exception not the norm
Perhaps we should review actual requests over the next 6 months to
see whether further clarification of guidelines is warranted
Cheers
Rosemary
Rosemary Sinclair
Managing Director, ATUG
Chairman, INTUG
T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889
M: +61 413734490
Email: rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au
Skype: rasinclair
Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
www.atug.com.au
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 8:16 AM
To: KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
Wolf,
Speaking in my personal capacity, I do not understand the
concerns. Extended review is by its design an exception procedure; an
applicant would have to request it for it to happen on a given application.
It would then be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there
was not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity.
Before considering additional work for an already overworked
GNSO, it would sure help to understand what the ISPCP issues are. What
you say below gives no clue about them.
Chuck
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of KnobenW@telekom.de
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:00 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
Dear
councillors,
after repeated discussion the ISPCP constituency still has the following
concerns regarding the letter to be sent to Kurt Pritz.
We understand that there are examples of string similarity which would not
necessarily would cause detrimental confusion and that in this case - and only
in this - an extended review should be granted to the applicant.
However strict rules must be set under which the extended review is
permitted ensuring the string similarity review is the normal case and the
extended one an exception. These rules are to be worked out with participation
of the community.
The letter should express that the rules must immediately be worked out by a
small expert group in order to achieve community acceptance.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich