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. Alan 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
============================== 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@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@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.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)