Hi Everyone, Based on the discussions we had, and the feedback received from different people, I would like to make a number of changes to the Proposed Motion on New gTLD Recommendation (IDNG motion on clarifications for confusingly similar TLD string). The main change in the motion is the addition of a consideration for a 21 day comment period for the letter before it being sent by the council. Have also made various edits to address concerns raised by different people, including the issue raised by Kristina about potentially conflicting with the IRT report. Attached is a "red-lined" version highlighting the changes. Below is a clean version for consideration. Rafik, I wonder if you would be willing to consider the changes as friendly amendments? :-) Edmon Proposed Motion - New gTLD Recommendation (as amended June 2) =================================================== WHEREAS: • The Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 3 does not include an Extended Review option for strings that fail the initial evaluation for confusing similarity and likelihood to confuse; • The GNSO Council recognizes that time is of the essence in sending feedback to ICANN staff on the Draft Applicant Guidebook; • The IDNG Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has discussed various circumstances where applicants for 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; RESOLVED: • A 21-day public comment period be opened not later than 11 June 2010 regarding a proposal to send the following letter to Kurt Pritz (with copy 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 an Extended Review under applicable terms similar to those provided for other issues such as "DNS Stability: String Review Procedure". • ICANN Staff prepare a summary and analysis of the public comments not later than 6 July 2010. • The GNSO Council takes action in its meeting of 15 July 2010 regarding whether or not to send the letter. PROPOSED LETTER: 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 “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 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.