[ALAC] Something we didn't think about.

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Tue Aug 20 15:20:00 UTC 2013

My understanding is that legally we are in murky water, since we 
seemingly have no formal way to stop the applications that have 
passed the objection, and no way to overturn the rejection, yet all 
three must be treated the same way.

So perhaps you can define what "good sense" dictates?

Hindsight says that we should have insisted that all string 
similarity objections be groups together, suing the sum-total of the 
arguments for and against. But in our collective wisdom, we didn't.


At 20/08/2013 10:03 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>.....the zealot Paul [of Christian scriptures] says it this way 'we 
>see in part, and we prophesy in part'.
>So now then, here's a perfect opportunity to see if good sense will prevail.
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Verisign filed string-similarity objections against the three 
>applications for .CAM. Two were decided last week (by the same 
>panelist) against Verisign. The third, hear by a different panelist, 
>decided for Verisign.
>A string similarity decision is supposed to be based on the strings 
>themselves and not the usage, but the AG does not contemplate this occurrence.
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 

More information about the ALAC mailing list