I would not support the assertion that the evaluations contravene policy, or "that we have heard *and share* concerns." I could support sending a question on which we'd like further information in order to assess whether policy has been implemented properly. --Wendy On 04/10/2013 11:40 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
All, Here is my take on the text of a letter from Jonathan to Steve on the subject of singular and plural new gTLD applications as we agreed ought to be written and sent. Cheers, Berard
In the course of our meetings this week in Beijing, we have heard and share the concerns expressed about the undesirable consequences of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same word to be delegated in the news gTLD program. On the basis of policy recommendations of the Council to avoid consumer confusion, this letter asks for clarity on why that policy was, effectively, set aside by the panelist that ICANN enrolled to conduct string similarity tests. Specifically, in the new gTLD Report that was adopted by the GNSO Council was “Recommendation 2 Discussion -- Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain” (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm). The effect of singular and plurals is already embedded in practice. Note that WIPO mediation rules include this: “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.” At a minimum, the Council requests fuller disclosure about the process by which the panelist made their determination and why the Board accepted this variance from existing practice and gTLD policy. Greater transparency will help the Council evaluate whether the criteria for string similarity were properly conveyed to the panelist, whether the panelist followed that policy advice and how we can address the concerns of the community.