April 2013 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Here is GAC communique in text
by Steve DelBianco April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

1. New gTLDs . GAC Objections to Specific Applications i. The GAC Advises the ICANN Board that: i. The GAC has reached consensus on GAC Objection Advice according to Module 3.1 part I of the Applicant Guidebook on the following applications: 1. The application for .africa (Application number 1--1165--42560) 2. The application for .gcc (application number: 1--1936--2101) ii. With regard to Module 3.1 part II of the Applicant Guidebook4: 1. The GAC recognizes that Religious terms are sensitive issues. Some GAC members have raised sensitivities on the applications that relate to Islamic terms, specifically .islam and .halal. The GAC members concerned have noted that the applications for .islam and .halal lack community involvement and support. It is the view of these GAC membersthat these applications should not proceed. b. Safeguard Advice for New gTLDs To reinforce existing processes for raising and addressing concerns the GAC isproviding safeguard advice to apply to broad categories of strings (see Annex I). c. Strings for Further GAC Consideration In addition to this safeguard advice, that GAC has identified certain gTLD strings where further GAC consideration may be warranted, including at the GAC meetings to be held in Durban. i. Consequently, the GAC advises the ICANNBoard to: not proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with the following strings : .shenzhen (IDN in Chinese), .persiangulf, .guangzhou (IDN in Chinese), .amazon (and IDNs in Japanese and Chinese), .patagonia, .date, .spa, . yun,.thai, .zulu, .wine, .vin 2 To track the history and progress of GAC Advice to the Board, please visit the GAC Advice Online Register available at: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Recent+Meetings 3 Module 3.1: “The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed. This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved. 4 Module 3.1: “The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application “dot--example.” The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision. 3 d. The GAC requests: i. a written briefing about the ability of anapplicant to change the string applied for in order to address concerns raised by a GAC Member and to identify a mutually acceptable solution. e. Community Support for Applications The GACadvises the Board: i. that in those cases where a community, which is clearly impacted by a set of new gTLD applications in contention, has expressed a collective and clear opinion on those applications, such opinion should be duly taken into account, together with all other relevant information. f. Singular and plural versions of the same string as a TLD The GAC believes that singular and plural versions of the string as a TLD could lead to potential consumer confusion. Therefore the GAC advises the ICANN Board to: i. Reconsider its decision to allow singular and plural versions of the same strings. g. Protections for Intergovernmental Organisations The GAC stresses that the IGOs perform an important global public mission with public funds, they are the creations of government under international law, and their names and acronyms warrant special protection in an expanded DNS. Such protection, which the GAC has previously advised, should be a priority. This recognizes that IGOs are in an objectively different category to other rights holders, warranting special protection by ICANN in the DNS, while also preserving sufficient flexibility for workable implementation. The GAC is mindful of outstanding implementation issues and commits to actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward. Pending the resolution of these implementation issues, the GAC reiterates its advice to the ICANN Board that: i. appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch. 2. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Consistent with previous communications to the ICANN Board a. the GAC advises the ICANN Board that: i. the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreementshould be finalized before any new gTLD contracts are approved. The GAC also strongly supports the amendment to the new gTLD registry agreement that would require new gTLD registry operators to use only those registrars that have signed the 2013 RAA. The GAC appreciates the improvements to the RAA that incorporate the 2009 GAC--Law Enforcement Recommendations. The GAC is also pleased with the progress on providing verification and improving accuracy of registrant data and supports continuing efforts to identify preventative mechanisms that help deter criminal or other illegal activity. Furthermore the GAC urges all stakeholders to accelerate the implementation of accreditation programs for privacy and proxy services for WHOIS. 3. WHOIS The GAC urges the ICANN Board to: a. ensure that the GAC Principles Regarding gTLD WHOIS Services, approved in 2007, are duly taken into account by the recently established Directory Services Expert Working Group. The GAC stands ready to respond to any questions with regard to the GAC Principles. The GAC also expects its views to be incorporated into whatever subsequent policy development process might be initiated once the Expert Working Group concludes its efforts. 4. International Olympic Committee and Red Cross /Red Crescent Consistent with its previous communications, the GAC advises the ICANN Board to: a. amend the provisions in the new gTLD Registry Agreement pertaining to the IOC/RCRC names to confirm that the protections will be made permanent prior to the delegation of any new gTLDs. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

2 1

RE: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural
by Ron Andruff April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Well said, Steve. This underscores all of the key arguments that were put forward. Well done. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings that create a possibility of user confusion. But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include 24 pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish) Sport(s) Loan(s) Web(s) Game(s) Hotel(es) Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are well understood. -confusion -precedent for the next round -ICANN looking pretty ridiculous What’s not understood is how it happened and what we can do about it. First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly similar. Second response is “Chong” ( Chinese for “Do-over” ) -Do-over on just these 24 pairs - WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.” Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals are confusingly similar) String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the ICDR rightnow. If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs should be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN to stumble. We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD launch. No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] GAC Communique on closed generics
by Ron Andruff April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Go for it! Let's strike while the iron is hot! RA Ron Andruff www.lifedotsport.com -------- Original message -------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] GAC Communique on closed generics Here is the Excerpt on Closed Generics. Exclusive Access • For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal. • In the current round, the GAC has identified the following non-‐exhaustive list of strings that it considers to be generic terms, where the applicant is currently proposing to provide exclusive registry access .antivirus, .app, .autoinsurance, .baby, .beauty, .blog, .book, .broker, .carinsurance, .cars, .cloud, .courses, .cpa, .cruise, .data, .dvr, .financialaid, .flowers, .food, .game, .grocery, .hair, .hotel, .hotels .insurance, .jewelry, .mail, .makeup, .map, .mobile, .motorcycles, .movie, .music, .news, .phone,.salon, .search, .shop, .show, .skin, .song, .store, .tennis, .theater, .theatre, .tires, .tunes, .video, .watches, .weather, .yachts, .クラウド [cloud], .ストア [store], .セール [sale], .ファッション [fashion], .家電 [consumer electronics], .手表 [watches], .書籍 [book], .珠宝 [jewelry], .通販 [online shopping], .食品 [food] Looks to me like GAC advice is to establish public interest before allowing "Exclusive Access" or closed TLD. They imply an Operator has to show that Exclusive Access will serve a public interest goal. I could go to mic and explain that the Ry Code of Conduct was written with this in mind, but we need ICANN to clarify the rules for the public interest test in 6 (iii) below: 1. In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of Registry Services with respect to the TLD to: b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited registrar that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD 6. Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfercontrol or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest.

1 0

GAC Communique from Beijing
by Steve DelBianco April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Here it is.

1 1

Board just published agenda for Public Forum
by Steve DelBianco April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Agenda Details: (4.5 Hours )(1330-1800) * Introductory comments * Time - (15-minutes) (1330-1345) * Presenter: Steve Crocker * Thanks to departing community leaders/members * Time - (5-minutes)(1345-1350) * Presenter: Steve Crocker * Board Reporting * Time - (15-minutes) (1350-1405) * Open microphone for community response to Board reporting * Time – (15-minutes)(1405-1420) * Board Facilitator – Steve Crocker * ISSUE SUBJECT: Registry & Registrar Agreements * Time - (1-hour)(1420-1520) * Board Facilitator – Bill Graham BREAK (20-Minutes)(1520-1540) * Presentation about ICANN 47 * Time - (5-minutes)(1540-1545) * Presenter – Mokgabudi Lucky Masilela, .ZA Board Member * ISSUE SUBJECT: new gTLD status * Time – (1-hour) (1545-1645) * ISSUE SUBJECT: Any additional business * Time – (75 minutes)(1645-1800) * Board Facilitator - Chris Disspain Organization of the Forum: The public forum has three main sections as follows: 1. Board Reporting: ICANN Board provides a report at the end of the ICANN meeting week. 2. Subject Specific Discussion: Time will be allotted for various topics (to be posted). This agenda is developed with input received from ICANN Community Leaders of Supporting Organizations, Advisory Councils and Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies and the community in general 3. Any Other Business: This is in essence a more relaxed open mic session where any subject may be raised to the Board.

1 0

Reconsideration of Singular-Plural contention sets
by Steve DelBianco April 11, 2013

April 11, 2013

Update: John and Zahid may raise the idea of GNSO Council asking for a formal Reconsideration of ICANN's decision on contention sets. In addition the confusion/precedent/defensive concerns we've already disused, Ron Andruff raised another rationale for Reconsideration: a lack of transparency regarding the panelist and the process. Best case, we get the GNSO Chair to raise this Reconsideration request at Public Forum this afternoon in Beijing. And now this: An applicant whose string was fond to be visually similar was Unicom, who was placed in a contention set with Unicorn. On 9-April, China Unicom filed for formal Reconsideration (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/wang-to-crocker-et-al-09apr13-e…>), suggesting that Visual Similarity alone was NOT a problem in this case. Best case, China Unicom goes to the mic today in the Beijing Public forum about this. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 0

106 Programs
by Chris Chaplow April 10, 2013

April 10, 2013

Dear BC Members, With respect to the ICANN financial budget updates and ATASK management system here is a consolidated spreadsheet of the description of 106 Programs that are currently in myicann.org Financial information will be added when the draft Budget is published on the 8th May and the BC/CSG will prepare comments. Consider the document a preview. Best Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: <mailto:chris@andalucia.com> chris(a)andalucia.com Web: <http://www.andalucia.com/> www.andalucia.com Information about Andalucia, Spain.

1 0

Policy slides for Beijing BC meeting, 9-April-2013
by Steve DelBianco April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

Here are the slides we'll use during today's Policy discussion at the BC meeting in Beijing -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482

1 1

RE: [bc-gnso] RE: McCarthy/Franklyn comments on closed generics
by Phil Corwin April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

Mike: With all respect, Prof. McCarthy's 7-volume treatise on Trademarks and Unfair Competition has been cited in more than 3,000 judicial opinions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Thomas_McCarthy. So I would hesitate to agree that he is "obviously wrong" on this matter. At a minimum, given all the time and energy that ICANN has devoted to respecting and protecting trademarks through such new gTLD RPMs as the TMC and URS, his expert view on the incompatibility of closed gTLDs with trademark law should be taken very seriously. While I personally disagree that closed generics [which I regard as applications in which it is proposed that the registry operator be the sole registrant in a proposed string in which the applicant holds no trademark rights; that is, not a .brand] don't raise trademark law concerns, I do concur that competition issues also arise and may even be the primary issue. In that regard, as well as in regard to claims that the ICANN request for comments on closed generics somehow raises a new issue, sets a precedent for major changes in the Applicant Guidebook, or portends an unfair change in rules that applicants relied upon, I would respond that the need to obtain an exemption from the Code of Conduct (COC) for a closed registry has always been present, as well as the application of a public interest standard to the granting of such a waiver, and that applicants cannot now claim surprise or ignorance. Section 2.14 of the Registry Agreement has always stated that a registry operator must comply with the COC set forth at Specification 9. Section 1.b of the COC has always stated that the registry operator and its parents, affiliates, subcontractors, or other related entities can only register domains in the registry to a very limited extent - restricted to names that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations, and purpose of the TLD. Section 6 of the COC provides for an exemption process whereby ICANN may, in its sole discretion and conditioned on its "reasonable satisfaction", allow the registry operator to register and maintain all domain registrations for its own exclusive use - if ICANN determines that "application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest". My understanding of the exemption clause is that it arose from the BC to accommodate .brands, without any contemplation that certain applicants would seek to lock up dozens of key dictionary words for their own exclusive use (in fact, their goal may be less to use the registries than to deny access to current and potential competitors). So in my view this debate is not about creating a new definition for "closed generics" but whether the public interest requires ICANN to deny exemption requests for proposed non-.brand closed registries. (And I absolutely reject the sophistic and unconvincing arguments I have seen that an applicant can bypass the exemption process entirely by simply declaring that its gTLD's "purpose" is to be for its own exclusive use - that would allow the exception to swallow the rule and render Section 6 a pointless nullity.) My personal view is that closed generic gTLDs are inherently anti-competitive monopolies and that ICANN should adopt a position that denial of such exemption requests is necessary to protect the public interest. These applications are incompatible with the competition and innovation justifications made for the new gTLD program because they are motivated by anti-competitive self-interest and the goal of denying these strings as a platform for pro-competitive innovation to others. New gTLDs are the perfect platform for competitive vertical search - are competition, innovation and the public interest better served by a .book for Amazon's exclusive use and protection of its existing dominance, a .search for Google's exclusive use and protection of its existing dominance, or by open gTLDs for those strings that can be utilized by thousands of innovative market entrants? I further believe that such a position is in ICANN's best long-term interest, as well as the interest of all who want to preserve its multi-stakeholder model against governmental intrusion. While it is true that the competitive issues raised by closed gTLDs are the ultimate responsibility of national competition authorities, ICANN will do itself no favors if it approves closed generic gTLDs that subsequently require years of investigation, enforcement actions, and expenditure of human and financial resources (in an era of constrained public resources) by such authorities when the matter could have been avoided in the first place by adopting a responsible position of the public interest consideration for granting COC exemptions. A final consideration is the potential spectacle of thousands of closed generic applications flowing into ICANN on the second round if it accommodates them in the first. Domain and marketing consultants will surely be advising the world's largest companies that if they don't file applications to lock up key dictionary words for their own primary commercial activities that their competitors may well grab then and close them off. ICANN could well realize a $billion in application fees in the second round by marketing key words in the world's major languages for the purpose of locking them away rather than making them available to global Internet users. I for one find the prospect of selling off exclusive use of such words as if they were municipal stadium naming rights to be crass and unseemly and, while in ICANN's financial interests, inconsistent with its responsibilities and role of managing the DNS in a manner consistent with the public good. In closing, while I shall leave it to Professor McCarthy to decide whether to take offense and respond to your assertion that his comment letter constitutes an "apparent conflict of interest" because of Microsoft's sponsorship of the annual McCarthy Symposium, I am incredulous that he would make the statements contained in his comment letter if he did not fully subscribe to them. For the sake of full disclosure, while the views expressed above are my personal views, I am providing counsel to a new gTLD applicant that is in contention with a Google application for a closed generic (ICA, the client with whom I am generally associated and which I represent on the BC, did not have a consensus among its members on closed generics). For the sake of full disclosure, and especially given your assertion that Professor McCarthy's comments evidence a conflict of interest, will you disclose whether you are advising applicants for closed generics? Regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:43 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'bc - GNSO list' Cc: IPC Discussion List Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: McCarthy/Franklyn comments on closed generics Phil, thanks for sending around Prof. McCarthy and Prof. Franklyn's statement on so-called 'closed generic' TLD strings. I have great respect for Prof. McCarthy; he taught me trademark law at USF in the early '90's and his treatise is a leading authority. However, this statement is not persuasive. The fundamental premise you quote is obviously wrong. While trademark law, by definition, may prohibit trademark registration of generic terms, it does not and has never prohibited individuals from gaining exclusive property rights in generic terms. There are millions of generic terms that are the subject of exclusive domain name property rights, i.e. chocolate.com, sex.com, etc. Many countries recognize that chocolate.com, for example, can function as a trademark even for the service of selling chocolate, particularly after a period of exclusive use by which distinctiveness is acquired. As you well know, there are many such trademark registrations in many jurisdictions. Exclusive ownership has always been permitted in regards to domain names at all levels of the DNS - including the top level. Why should there be any policy difference between TLDs and .com domains? Though the US has been more conservative in granting trademark rights in domain names or TLD strings, no US law has ever sought to prohibit exclusive use of generic domain names, and many arguably generic words are registered as marks for related goods and services (as well as a few arguably generic TLD strings). Indeed many TLD operators and prospective TLD operators have secured trademark registration in their TLD string, some in the U.S. and many more in Europe and elsewhere. As Prof. McCarthy taught me and thousands of others, trademark law seeks to prevent confusion as to source of a good or service. The type of confusion he and Prof. Franklyn cite in their statement on this issue has nothing to do with product source, and is purely speculative. They say (and you quote): "consumers may mistakenly believe they are using a gTLD that allows for competition, when in reality the gTLD is closed and the apparently competitive products are being offered by a single entity" They are speculating, without citation to any evidence or authority, that consumers "may" be confused as to some aspect or quality of the TLD service, but that has nothing to do with confusion as to the source of that service. They are speculating that the marketing of such TLDs will be confusing, when there is no factual basis whatsoever for such speculation. Web users have had long exposure to generic domain names used by myriad businesses, including well-known brands, throughout the world for more than 20 years, with absolutely no confusion ever documented as far as I am aware. That evidence ought to trump the blank speculation even of well-respected trademark academics. Furthermore, they do not address why Apple Computer should get to own .apple or Microsoft should get to own .windows (among many other examples of 'generic' dictionary words that are trademarks, and that will be closed TLDs), and exclude anyone else from registering domains in that TLD, even if they want to refer to the fruit or to the glass building component. They do not address how consumer confusion in that case would logically be any different than the consumer confusion they posit. Finally, it must be noted that the annual McCarthy Symposium, probably not coincidentally held just a few days ago, counts on Microsoft as its major sponsor. And of course Microsoft has become one of the most outspoken critics of so-called closed generic TLDs, quite curiously despite its own applications for .docs, .windows and other 'closed generic' TLDs. Given this apparent conflict of interest, the blatantly faulty premise in its core reasoning, and the misguided speculation as to future consumer expectations that appears central to their argument, this one page statement leaves a lot of questions and is far from persuasive, imho. This is not a trademark issue, but a competition issue. It is also an issue of fairness given that closed business models have been accepted by the community since 2006, and many companies have invested heavily in reliance on the fact that such models are not prohibited by ICANN's rules. All companies had the same opportunity to make such investments. The primary voices arguing against these models now are surrogates for those who passed on the opportunity (and, curiously, Microsoft), those who are competing in contention sets with closed business models, and those who want to sell unrestricted domain names and fear disruption to the traditional domain name business model on which they have built their business. Those patently self-interested concerns are not the sort of concerns that should make any difference to ICANN at this point in the new TLD program, or to anyone else in the world. We should all care much more about the problem of .sport and .sports, for example, coexisting as ICANN appears set to allow. That seems to have a much higher likelihood of massive consumer confusion than does the operation of closed TLDs. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 4:29 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Contention sets for new gTLDs "Unbelievably, they did not consider the singular and plural versions of key words to be confusingly similar." Unbelievable indeed. How about .dumb and .dumber? Meanwhile the leading trademark authority in the United States, Professor Thomas McCarthy, has just filed a statement opposing closed generic gTLDs as being inconsistent with trademark law and its goals -- http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00034.html -- "Trademark law in every country in the world forbids individuals to gain exclusive property rights in generic names of products. One of the primary rationales for this rule is to prevent a single person or company from gaining an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace. Private ownership of generic language is not consistent with free enterprise and fair competition in an open economy. If ICANN were to approve closed, generic gTLDs, these important goals would be undermined... Transparency and consumer choice are goals of the trademark system of every country in the world. In our view, these values are threatened by closed, generic gTLDs. Indeed, should these types of new gTLDs be approved, consumers may mistakenly believe they are using a gTLD that allows for competition, when in reality the gTLD is closed and the apparently competitive products are being offered by a single entity. This would allow the owner of the generic gTLD to gain exclusive recognition as the provider of a generic service, something that is prohibited by Trademark law." How will that reflect on ICANN and the new gTLD program? Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:50 PM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Update: Contention sets for new gTLDs Wanted you all to see this. I think it will reflect poorly on ICANN's expansion of TLDs. ICANN hired an international expert panel to scour 1900 new TLD strings and determine which were confusingly similar, so they could be combines in the same contention set. This is to ensure we don't delegate 2 TLD strings that would confuse Internet users because they are too similar. I expected, for example, that the applications received for .hotel and .hotels would be in the same contention set, since it would be confusing for users to have both TLDs out there. (It would increase the cost of defensive registrations, too, since hotels would have to buy domains in both TLDs. ) After several months of careful study, ICANN's experts published their contention sets yesterday. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26feb13-en.htm>) They "identified" 230 "exact match contention sets" where multiple applicants sought the exact same string. And they found just 2 "non-exact match contention sets" (unicom and unicorm; hoteis and hotels ) Unbelievably, they did not consider the singular and plural versions of key words to be confusingly similar. This means we will get new TLDs for both the singular and plural versions of keywords such as: ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANTS AUTO AUTOS CAR CARS CAREER CAREERS COUPON COUPONS CRUISE CRUISES DEAL DEALS FAN FANS GAME GAMES GIFT GIFTS HOME HOMES HOTEL HOTELS HOTEL HOTELES KID KIDS LOAN LOANS MARKET MARKETS NEW NEWS PET PETS PHOTO PHOTOS REVIEW REVIEWS SPORT SPORTS TOUR TOURS WEB WEBS WORK WORKS What are the implications for applicants? Well, let's take an example. The 2 Applicants for .GIFT just got a huge gift from ICANN when they were not placed in the same contention set as the 2 applicants for .GIFTS One of the 2 .GIFT guys must prevail in their "singular" contention set. They can then proceed to delegation, as they planned. Or they can negotiate to be bought-out by the winning applicant from the plural contention set ( .GIFTS ). In other words, many applicants dodged a bullet by escaping from contention with their singular/plural form competitors. My guess is they want to explore ways to monetize their good fortune. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6130 - Release Date: 02/25/13 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6130 - Release Date: 02/25/13 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

8 11

BEIJING: Invitation to GNSO community: NCUC cocktail reception in Beijing
by Benedetta Rossi April 9, 2013

April 9, 2013

"The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) invites all our colleagues from the Generic Names Supporting Organization to our Outreach Cocktail reception, to be held on Tuesday 9 April at 6 p.m. - immediately following the Board-GAC meeting - in Grand Hall Foyer B. We would like to invite you all also to the NCUC Workshop tomorrow afternoon, on "One World, One Internet: Competiton and New gTLDs in a Changing Global Economy", to be held from 1.00-3.00 p.m. in Room 8AB. Our thanks to our sponsors, including cgi.br, the Public Interest Registry, and the Internet Society. We hope to see you at one or both of our Beijng events!" Thanks and cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php <http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php>

1 0