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