Is the IDNG willing to revise its motion to substitute "detrimental user confusion" for "detrimental harm"? ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 9:52 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] IDNG Motion Please note the following from DAG3 that is pertinent from a substance point of view regarding the IDNG motion under consideration by the Council today. I added the yellow highlighting and the bold font for emphasis of what I think are critical points in the current DAG. 2.1.1.1 String Similarity Review 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. Here's the URL for DAG3: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-04oct09-en.pdf
As you can see, Staff has already included the factor of 'detrimental user confusion'. I believe that is the key issue that the IDNG identified and wanted to ensure proper handling in initial evaluation process. It seems to me that the above language tasks the independent String Similarity Panel to evaluate not only visual similarity in the initial evaluation but also whether in cases of string similarity whether there is the probability of detrimental user confusion. One thing the Council could do is ask Staff if this is a correct conclusion. If so, then I think the concern communicated by the IDNG is at least partially addressed, because I believe that this evaluation step would appropriately satisfy the GNSO recommendations. But the question still arises as to whether there should be some sort of appeal mechanisms for applicants when there strings are denied in the string similarity initial evaluation step. That does not appear to be the case now because extended evaluation is not permitted for string similarity decisions. I hope this helps regarding the substance of the motion and what I think is the intent of the IDNG. I am not sure whether it helps in any way regarding the process issues that have been raised. Chuck