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 <mailto: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
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? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ 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: <mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au> 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
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? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ 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 <mailto: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
participants (3)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Rosemary Sinclair