Thanks Jeff, That's helpful input and background to any discussion we may have. It seems to me that the key question then becomes what, if anything, could or should the Council do to take this further? We have written to express a concern that the work currently being undertaken is potentially not consistent with the relevant GNSO policy (attached as a reminder). On the back of to be determined output from the Policy & Implementation WG, we may handle similar policy output differently in future e.g. by specifying more detail on implementing GNSO policy. But, the work of the P&I WG is only just beginning. Therefore, the question for us is what can we do now, or have we made a sufficient point already? What would be very helpful context for such a discussion, is to know if ICANN has any intention of modifying or developing how they are handling this already? So, the question/s for Christine should almost certainly include the following: 1. Does ICANN agree that there is an inconsistency with the output of work on string similarity and the relevant GNSO policy AND, in any event, 2. Does ICANN have any intention of modifying or developing how they are handling string similarity decisions? Jonathan From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: 07 October 2013 21:23 To: GNSO Council (council@gnso.icann.org) Subject: [council] Personal Thoughts on String Similarity All, In preparation for our Council call this week where the topic of String Similarity will be discussed, I wanted to provide these comments which are my own and not necessarily the views of the Registries Stakeholder Group. Like many in the ICANN community, I have expressed some frustration about inconsistent application of ICANN's standard for new gTLD objections based on claims that an applied for string is "confusingly similar" to another proposed gTLD or to an existing TLD. This led me to ask Christine Willett during the last ICANN Webinar Update how the ICANN staff intended to proceed in such cases. I want to be clear, however, that "consistent" application of the confusingly similar standard DOES NOT require the "same" outcome for all applications for the exact match for a particular string. If that were the case, then the dispute resolution panels would be required to evaluate the likelihood of confusion without regard to each applicant's unique plan for a gTLD string and their arguments articulating why such plans would not cause confusion. That would be a huge mistake. In fact, the proposed use of a new gTLD is highly relevant to the question of whether or not there is a likelihood of confusion. Indeed, it is to be expected that expert panels might reasonably conclude, as has apparently happened, that the string ".cam" is confusingly similar to ".com" in one case but not in another. As lawyers for United TLD argued in that case (in a publicly accessible letter), "Consolidation has the potential to prejudice the Applicants if all Applicants' arguments are evaluated collectively, without regard to each Applicant's unique plan for the .cam gTLD and their arguments why such plans would not cause confusion." In fact, the complained-of inconsistency in other cases appears to arise from the panel's failure to actually take account of the context in which a proposed gTLD would operate. Examples include translation cases where the different markets were likely not considered. My point is that the community and applicant pool each have legitimate interests in the consistent application of ICANN's standard for determining whether or not two strings "confusingly similar." Those interests do not, however, justify further delay or re-opening cases where context supports a finding of confusing similarity in one case but not another. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz> jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / <http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz