AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

このページの古いバージョンを表示しています。現在のバージョンを表示します。

現在のバージョンとの相違点 ページ履歴を表示

« 前のバージョン バージョン 12 次のバージョン »

Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
RALO(s)

Call for
Comments		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote
Announcement 		Vote OpenVote
Reminder		Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
11.03.2014Proposed Review Mechanism to Address Perceived Inconsistent Expert Determinations on String Confusion ObjectionsVotingAlan Greenberg (NARALO)20.02.201428.02.2014
12:00 UTC 		28.02.201428.02.2014
20:00 UTC 		06.03.201407.03.2014
20:00 UTC 		07.03.2014Christine Willett
christine.willet@icann.org 		TBC

 


Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date: 11 February 2014
Comment Close Date: 11 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date: 12 March 2014
Reply Close Date: 2 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Public Comment Announcement
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)`
View Comments Submitted
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: 
Global Domains Division
Categories/Tags: 
  • Contracted Party Agreements
  • New gTLD Program
  • Reviews/Improvements
  • Top-Level Domains
Purpose (Brief): 

To solicit community input regarding a proposed review mechanism to address perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations in the String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Program. The review mechanism will be limited to the Expert Determinations made on String Confusion objections for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM.

Current Status: 

The String Confusion Objections are administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). Expert Determinations have been issued by the ICDR for all String Confusion Objections filed.

Next Steps: 

After reviewing feedback from the public comment forum, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) will consider options to address the perceived inconsistent String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations, including whether to allow the Expert Determinations to stand as is, and whether or not to adopt the proposed review mechanism.

Staff Contact: 
Christine Willett
Email Staff Contact
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 

At the direction of the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), ICANN is soliciting public comment on a proposed review mechanism to address the perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations in certain New gTLD Program String Confusion Objection proceedings. The proposed review mechanism will be limited to the String Confusion Objection Expert Determinations for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM.

If adopted, the review mechanism would constitute a change to the String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Given that the proposal to implement this review mechanism could affect the outcomes of one or more of String Confusion Objections – a process that was informed by years of debate and public comment as part of the development of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook – the proposed review mechanism is being published for public comment.

Section II: Background: 

The New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (Guidebook) identifies four grounds upon which a formal objection may be filed against a gTLD application. One such objection is a String Confusion Objection (SCO), which may be filed by an objector (meeting the standing requirements) on the grounds that an applied-for gTLD string is confusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another applied-for gTLD string in the same round of applications. If successful, a SCO could change the configuration of the preliminary contention sets in that the two applied-for gTLD strings will be considered to be in contention with one another (see Guidebook Module 4, String Contention Procedures). The SCOs are administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). Expert Determinations have been issued by the ICDR for all String Confusion Objections filed.

Some members of the community have commented on perceived "inconsistent" SCO Expert Determinations. The NGPC has monitored the SCO Expert Determinations over the past several months, and discussed the community comments at more than one of its meetings. Also, on 10 October 2013 [PDF, 132 KB] the Board Governance Committee (BGC) asked staff to draft a report for the NGPC on String Confusion Objections as some requestors commented on "inconsistencies" in certain SCO Expert Determinations.

Following on from the staff report on String Confusion Objections, the NGPC identified two sets of perceived "inconsistent" SCO Expert Determinations (i.e. objections raised by the same objector against different applications for the same string, where the outcomes of the SCOs differ). At its 5 February 2014 meeting, the NGPC took action to direct the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee, to initiate a public comment period on the framework principles of a potential review mechanism to address the perceived inconsistent SCO Expert Determinations.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
Section IV: Additional Information: 

N/A

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The ALAC supports the details of the process described, but recommends that it be widened to include cases such as the various .shop objections where the objected-to strings were not identical, but the results were just as inconsistent. Moreover, the ALAC deeply regrets that it has taken ICANN so long to react to the overall situation that it must now choose to accept many of the other seemingly illogical results.

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The ALAC supports the details of the process described, but recommends that it be widened to include cases such as the various .shop objections where the objected-to strings were not identical, but the results were just as inconsistent. Moreover, the ALAC deeply regrets that it has taken ICANN so long to react to the overall situation that it must now choose to accept many of the other seemingly illogical results.
  • ラベルがありません