[ALAC] Singular/Plural in new gTLDs

[Alan Greenberg]

That could be done. But first I wanted to find out if there was any 
interest within the ALAC. If there is little interest, I will do 
something on my own, but with far less impact than if it is advice 
from the ALAC.

Also note that this is an issue that is extremely time-sensitive, 
since if the issue is to be re-opened, it will have to be done very quickly.

Alan

At 03/09/2013 11:58 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>Thank you for monitoring this space. I would suggest opening the 
>discussions within the broader At Large to solicit views and 
>feedback, preferably if the discussions could ensue on both the 
>mailing list as well as the wiki before a statement is drafted.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Sala
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Sep 4, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD 
> Program Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and 
> plural stings being confusingly similar and decided to let the 
> original process stand (subject to individual objections). The 
> record of the decision can be found at 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.d. 
> Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members 
> (George Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who 
> supported the decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant 
> Guidebook wording, they did not believe that they had the leeway to 
> vote against it. One Board member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision.
> >
> > A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely 
> on visual similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in 
> the decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string.
> >
> > The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook 
> (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf) 
> is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2.
> >
> >> This review involves a preliminary comparison of each 
> applied-for gTLD string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see 
> subsection 2.2.1.2), and other applied-for strings. The objective 
> of this review is to prevent user confusion and loss of confidence 
> in the DNS resulting from delegation of many similar strings.
> >>
> >> Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so 
> similar that they create a probability of user confusion if more 
> than one of the strings is 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.
> >
> > I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is 
> the belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in 
> computer terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern 
> matching is certainly part of human perception, but it is not 
> limited to that. At issue is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED 
> as being equivalent, and perception is a far more complex (and less 
> understood) issue.
> >
> > The real issue is that if you earlier found something at 
> hilton.hotel, or had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel 
> were something you trusted, will you later remember if it was 
> really those sites or hilton.hotels or sheraton.hotels?
> >
> > At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who 
> registers a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map 
> both of them to the same site. If that were to happen, the 
> predictions of the Intellectual Property Constituency would be 
> borne out, and all of those using these TLDs would have to make 
> double the investment in domain names (presuming this is even 
> possible with differing rules for each TLD). But the impact on 
> users would be minimal.
> >
> > But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever 
> in sync, we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical 
> Internet user to be able to differentiate between two such name 
> spaces, and therefore I believe that we have a genuine case of 
> "confusingly similar". And one that will arguably have as much or 
> more impact on real Internet users, the ones that we are supposed 
> to be here to defend, than any other case I can recall in my 7 year 
> involvement with ICANN At-Large.
> >
> > If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a 
> statement reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our 
> formal Advisory Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)