FYI
Chuck
From: Diane Schroeder
[mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:16 PM
To: Glen de Saint Géry
Cc: Kurt Pritz; Gomes, Chuck; David Olive; Liz Gasster; Stéphane Van Gelder;
olgac@fibertel.com.ar; Glen
Subject: Re: GNSO letter arising from GNSO Council requesting a change
to Module 2 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook
Dear Glen - the communication below has been sent to the
ICANN Board for their information. Regards, Diane
On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
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 an 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 ³String Similarity - Extended Review² 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 confusing similarity by the Initial Evaluation to request an extended
evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate extenuating circumstances in
the application which may be such that the similarity is not actually
detrimental. 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 gTLD with a
conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN gTLD)
that could be deemed to be similar but not cause the 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 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 their delegation would not cause detrimental confusion.
We
thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.
Respectfully
submitted on behalf of the GNSO Council Chair Chuck Gomes
Glen
de Saint Géry
GNSO
Secretariat
Diane Schroeder
Director of Board Support
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Office Phone - +1-310-823-9358
Fax - +1-310-823-8649
Mobile - +1-562-644-2524