Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 28 August 2024 at 14:00 UTC
**If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call has been scheduled for Wednesday, 28 August 2024 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins, For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ye25kknh The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/34ALFg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09 / Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN, ES & FR: 3535 (subject to availability) Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>
**If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call has been scheduled for Wednesday, 28 August 2024 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins, For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ye25kknh The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/34ALFg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09 / Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN, ES & FR: 3535 (subject to availability) Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>
**If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call has been scheduled for Wednesday, 28 August 2024 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins, For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ye25kknh The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/34ALFg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09 / Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN, ES & FR: 3535 (subject to availability) Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>
Dear All: The mission remains preventing abuse and misuse of the domain name system, maintaining stability and predictability within the namespace and preserving the integrity and value of the domain name space. Here's an example where the At-Large community finds itself entangled in discussions that consume valuable time but have little impact on the core issue. Just look at the poll results from the CPWG this morning. While regulatory actions that protect the vulnerable and ensure fairness are commendable, citing "avoiding end-user confusion" as the primary reason for prohibiting singular/plural strings in the namespace is the weakest argument. In practical terms, we're supporting a regulatory measure that’s supposedly intended to protect users from a navigational error—preventing them from landing on an unintended website. Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user. This feels like pandering to an extreme. Stronger arguments for prohibition include consumer protection, identity verification, avoiding brand and trademark conflicts, preventing domain name collisions, combating cybersquatting, and maintaining the integrity, stability, and predictability of the namespace. These are far more compelling reasons. Another troubling aspect is the reliance on a dictionary for a logically consistent interpretation of what constitutes singular or plural. Presumably, this would require an authoritative dictionary for every script and language. However, it's the content of the landing page that ultimately signals to a user they’re in the wrong place. Elevating specialized content as the arbiter for accessing other content raises concerns, especially in light of the "no content regulation" principle, revealing the weakness of this foundation. Prohibit if necessary, but unless "end-user confusion" is a catch-all label for all the ills, it is the wrong justification to anchor this argument and not a strong enough rationale to support such a significant regulatory action. Carlton Samuels ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Hi Carlton, I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different. If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference? I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG<cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Bill: Responses in line ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different.
....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can.
If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference?
presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see....
I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things.
..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi all Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable. “Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull. Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer. This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”. Cheers, Roberto On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Bill: Responses in line ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Carlton, I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different. ....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can. If I see plum.org<http://plum.org/>, and the actual name is plums.org<http://plums.org/>, will it occur to me that there's a difference? presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see.... I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things. ..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Count me sympathetic here. But unless you meant to charge exceptionalism, I strongly doubt we could elevate this to a '*cultural*' problem. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 16:10, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all
Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable.
“Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull.
Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer.
This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”.
Cheers, Roberto
On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Bill: Responses in line
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different.
....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can.
If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference?
presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see....
I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things.
..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Carlton, I mentioned at the call that mitigating risk of end-user confusion remains one of the core goals of the At-Large/ALAC as supported by existing ALAC positions. Apart from this discussed prohibition of singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language being delegated, I can think of another occasion where At-Large input was instrumental towards maintaining this goal - the conservative approach to introduction of allocatable variant gTLD labels. While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc. We have arrived at this juncture because the Board declined to adopt the original consensus-generated GNSO policy recommendation with STRICT regards to this issue of singular/plural words causing consumer confusion from the 2012 round - which as I said, was identified as an issue needing policy intervention. The SubPro PDP had discussed closely related aspects (if memory serves me correctly, including feminine/masculine words, acronyms) but did not come to consensus on those. Which is why the present issue is on "singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language". Given all the factors that I mentioned above, if we are to have a say in this STRICT issue, then what I discussed at the call is it. Sure, we can consider how to approach what we, as a group, decide is best to address "*consumer protection, identity verification, avoiding brand and trademark conflicts, preventing domain name collisions, combating cybersquatting, and maintaining the integrity, stability, and predictability of the namespace*" but there are other policies for driving those goals, even some which are still in the making. However, as your GNSO Liaison, I can only bring what is being discussed currently and narrowly for input in order to determine if we, as a group, want to have a say in this STRICT issue. Dear Bill, The proposed position being discussed is to support a ban, and with no exceptions. However, the Board has made it clear that it would be unworkable for ICANN org to be responsible for a blanket ban, which is why the approach proposed is a crowd-source one, i.e. anyone can notify ICANN org of the 2 instances that I discussed: 1- where a singular or plural version of an existing gTLD (or Blocked Name per Annex A) has been applied-for; or 2- where two (or more) applied-for strings are singular and plural versions of each other. In both situations, reference to a dictionary supporting the claim must be provided to facilitate verification. We can exercise further thought on the definition of 'dictionary' in implementation as we have been discouraged from being too prescriptive at this point. And the crowd-sourcing approach means that if no one notifies ICANN org or is unable to substantiate their claim by reference to a dictionary (likely per the satisfaction of a panel empowered by ICANN) then the impacted application (in scenario 1) or applications (in scenario 2) can proceed to the next steps of evaluation (which they still need to pass to succeed in getting the string) Dear Roberto, While I appreciate your remarks about "confusingly similar", I have to again stress that we are limited at this juncture to only the issue of singular/plural of the same word in the same language. I also appreciate it's not the best response to your input but it's the only one I have to offer. Respectfully, Justine On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 15:19, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Wise words. Wolfgang
Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> hat am 29.08.2024 23:10 CEST geschrieben:
Hi all
Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable.
“Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull.
Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer.
This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”.
Cheers, Roberto
On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Bill: Responses in line
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different.
....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can.
If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference?
presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see....
I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things.
..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thank you for very clear position paper to our colleagues’ concerns. Kisses Vanda From: Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Saturday, 31 August 2024 at 02:30 To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Singular/Plural Strings and End User Confusion Dear Carlton, I mentioned at the call that mitigating risk of end-user confusion remains one of the core goals of the At-Large/ALAC as supported by existing ALAC positions. Apart from this discussed prohibition of singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language being delegated, I can think of another occasion where At-Large input was instrumental towards maintaining this goal - the conservative approach to introduction of allocatable variant gTLD labels. While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc. We have arrived at this juncture because the Board declined to adopt the original consensus-generated GNSO policy recommendation with STRICT regards to this issue of singular/plural words causing consumer confusion from the 2012 round - which as I said, was identified as an issue needing policy intervention. The SubPro PDP had discussed closely related aspects (if memory serves me correctly, including feminine/masculine words, acronyms) but did not come to consensus on those. Which is why the present issue is on "singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language". Given all the factors that I mentioned above, if we are to have a say in this STRICT issue, then what I discussed at the call is it. Sure, we can consider how to approach what we, as a group, decide is best to address "consumer protection, identity verification, avoiding brand and trademark conflicts, preventing domain name collisions, combating cybersquatting, and maintaining the integrity, stability, and predictability of the namespace" but there are other policies for driving those goals, even some which are still in the making. However, as your GNSO Liaison, I can only bring what is being discussed currently and narrowly for input in order to determine if we, as a group, want to have a say in this STRICT issue. Dear Bill, The proposed position being discussed is to support a ban, and with no exceptions. However, the Board has made it clear that it would be unworkable for ICANN org to be responsible for a blanket ban, which is why the approach proposed is a crowd-source one, i.e. anyone can notify ICANN org of the 2 instances that I discussed: 1- where a singular or plural version of an existing gTLD (or Blocked Name per Annex A) has been applied-for; or 2- where two (or more) applied-for strings are singular and plural versions of each other. In both situations, reference to a dictionary supporting the claim must be provided to facilitate verification. We can exercise further thought on the definition of 'dictionary' in implementation as we have been discouraged from being too prescriptive at this point. And the crowd-sourcing approach means that if no one notifies ICANN org or is unable to substantiate their claim by reference to a dictionary (likely per the satisfaction of a panel empowered by ICANN) then the impacted application (in scenario 1) or applications (in scenario 2) can proceed to the next steps of evaluation (which they still need to pass to succeed in getting the string) Dear Roberto, While I appreciate your remarks about "confusingly similar", I have to again stress that we are limited at this juncture to only the issue of singular/plural of the same word in the same language. I also appreciate it's not the best response to your input but it's the only one I have to offer. Respectfully, Justine On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 15:19, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Wise words. Wolfgang Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> hat am 29.08.2024 23:10 CEST geschrieben: Hi all Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable. “Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull. Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer. This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”. Cheers, Roberto On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Bill: Responses in line ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Carlton, I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different. ....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can. If I see plum.org<http://plum.org/>, and the actual name is plums.org<http://plums.org/>, will it occur to me that there's a difference? presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see.... I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things. ..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On 31/08/2024 07:28, Justine Chew via CPWG wrote:
While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc.
This really is a key point. At-Large input and activity in all of the ICANN policy making processes is "constrained", or let's say "guided" by the policy making processes existing in the GNSO and ICANN. I know many seasoned participants are taking part in this discussion, but for the sake of the many newcomers who might be a little "lost" as to why there is so much "complication", the GNSO PDP process is further explained, with a very helpful set of diagrams, on: https://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp When EPDPs (expedited Policy Development Process) were introduced, they were called "expedited" because it was thought that by removing the creation of a preliminary issue report, the Policy Development Process would be shorter. This was not necessarily true as the checks and balances all need to be satisfied in the process. A diagram of the PDP vs. EPDP is shown here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-epdp-p... I realise this is from 2018 so hope this is correct - Justine, please point to a new one of there's one that's more up to date. Kindest regards, Olivier
Dear Justine: Believe me when I tell you I understand the constraints on the At-Large in policy making and how far it can take us even with all of us voluntarily trooping in a WG or even at GNSO discussions. Your faithfulness to the task is remarkable and deserves accolades. As a serial volunteer for WGs and RTs, I have developed a political sensibility in these fora where I buy whatever is being sold for what its worth. But I can only sell it for what I think its worth. First, ICANN - the public benefit corporation under the laws of the Great State of California - has interests singularly connected and severed from what we call the ICANN community. The Board is the selected guardian and Jones Day is usually available to remind them what that is. Second, the by-law gives the ALAC a very wide surface area for mouthing advice to the Board but the area where that advice is impactful is, comparably, very small. When our stakes are as small as they are and the opinions are, as in this matter, as scattered as they are, my view is that it is best for the ALAC to sit on our collective hands. We have to conserve volunteer engagement cycles and learn when to fold. Respectfully, Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 00:29, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I mentioned at the call that mitigating risk of end-user confusion remains one of the core goals of the At-Large/ALAC as supported by existing ALAC positions. Apart from this discussed prohibition of singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language being delegated, I can think of another occasion where At-Large input was instrumental towards maintaining this goal - the conservative approach to introduction of allocatable variant gTLD labels.
While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc.
We have arrived at this juncture because the Board declined to adopt the original consensus-generated GNSO policy recommendation with STRICT regards to this issue of singular/plural words causing consumer confusion from the 2012 round - which as I said, was identified as an issue needing policy intervention. The SubPro PDP had discussed closely related aspects (if memory serves me correctly, including feminine/masculine words, acronyms) but did not come to consensus on those. Which is why the present issue is on "singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language".
Given all the factors that I mentioned above, if we are to have a say in this STRICT issue, then what I discussed at the call is it.
Sure, we can consider how to approach what we, as a group, decide is best to address "*consumer protection, identity verification, avoiding brand and trademark conflicts, preventing domain name collisions, combating cybersquatting, and maintaining the integrity, stability, and predictability of the namespace*" but there are other policies for driving those goals, even some which are still in the making.
However, as your GNSO Liaison, I can only bring what is being discussed currently and narrowly for input in order to determine if we, as a group, want to have a say in this STRICT issue.
Dear Bill,
The proposed position being discussed is to support a ban, and with no exceptions. However, the Board has made it clear that it would be unworkable for ICANN org to be responsible for a blanket ban, which is why the approach proposed is a crowd-source one, i.e. anyone can notify ICANN org of the 2 instances that I discussed: 1- where a singular or plural version of an existing gTLD (or Blocked Name per Annex A) has been applied-for; or 2- where two (or more) applied-for strings are singular and plural versions of each other.
In both situations, reference to a dictionary supporting the claim must be provided to facilitate verification. We can exercise further thought on the definition of 'dictionary' in implementation as we have been discouraged from being too prescriptive at this point.
And the crowd-sourcing approach means that if no one notifies ICANN org or is unable to substantiate their claim by reference to a dictionary (likely per the satisfaction of a panel empowered by ICANN) then the impacted application (in scenario 1) or applications (in scenario 2) can proceed to the next steps of evaluation (which they still need to pass to succeed in getting the string)
Dear Roberto,
While I appreciate your remarks about "confusingly similar", I have to again stress that we are limited at this juncture to only the issue of singular/plural of the same word in the same language. I also appreciate it's not the best response to your input but it's the only one I have to offer.
Respectfully, Justine
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 15:19, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Wise words. Wolfgang
Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> hat am 29.08.2024 23:10 CEST geschrieben:
Hi all
Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable.
“Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull.
Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer.
This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”.
Cheers, Roberto
On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Bill: Responses in line
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different.
....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can.
If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference?
presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see....
I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things.
..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Carlton, You are of course entitled to your opinion; I offer a qualified alternative, and you and I may just agree to disagree at the end of the day. I have also been a serial volunteer for GNSO PDP WGs and would like to think that I too have developed a 'political sensitivity' in these fora. And believe me when I say that I have experienced a change in how impactful our input has been compared to when I started participating in ICANN. Granted it doesn't always result in what we want but I believe we should continue trying to input in areas where end users interests are impacted, per our mandate. And for us to be (more) impactful, we need to not only focus our volunteer resources on matters affecting end user interests but also expand our volunteer pool (and build capacity) for engagement in not only GNSO policy development, but also ICANN governance and organisational matters, as well as, yes, for building/ strengthening cross-community bridges to highlight issues that we as a group want to see addressed. Finally, coming back to the original subject of your email and the last paragraph of your reply: Firstly, I didn't get the sense that our opinions were all that scattered. Some may have voiced opinions on related matters which I have tried to either explain as either being out of scope or things we may venture to explore further in implementation. Certainly nothing to the level that warrants us to "fold" on. And secondly, I think our volunteer resources of Avri, Greg and I are being usefully applied in this particular matter. Respectfully, Justine --------- On Mon, 2 Sept 2024, 23:12 Carlton Samuels, <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Justine: Believe me when I tell you I understand the constraints on the At-Large in policy making and how far it can take us even with all of us voluntarily trooping in a WG or even at GNSO discussions. Your faithfulness to the task is remarkable and deserves accolades.
As a serial volunteer for WGs and RTs, I have developed a political sensibility in these fora where I buy whatever is being sold for what its worth. But I can only sell it for what I think its worth.
First, ICANN - the public benefit corporation under the laws of the Great State of California - has interests singularly connected and severed from what we call the ICANN community. The Board is the selected guardian and Jones Day is usually available to remind them what that is.
Second, the by-law gives the ALAC a very wide surface area for mouthing advice to the Board but the area where that advice is impactful is, comparably, very small.
When our stakes are as small as they are and the opinions are, as in this matter, as scattered as they are, my view is that it is best for the ALAC to sit on our collective hands. We have to conserve volunteer engagement cycles and learn when to fold.
Respectfully, Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 00:29, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I mentioned at the call that mitigating risk of end-user confusion remains one of the core goals of the At-Large/ALAC as supported by existing ALAC positions. Apart from this discussed prohibition of singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language being delegated, I can think of another occasion where At-Large input was instrumental towards maintaining this goal - the conservative approach to introduction of allocatable variant gTLD labels.
While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc.
We have arrived at this juncture because the Board declined to adopt the original consensus-generated GNSO policy recommendation with STRICT regards to this issue of singular/plural words causing consumer confusion from the 2012 round - which as I said, was identified as an issue needing policy intervention. The SubPro PDP had discussed closely related aspects (if memory serves me correctly, including feminine/masculine words, acronyms) but did not come to consensus on those. Which is why the present issue is on "singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language".
Given all the factors that I mentioned above, if we are to have a say in this STRICT issue, then what I discussed at the call is it.
Sure, we can consider how to approach what we, as a group, decide is best to address "*consumer protection, identity verification, avoiding brand and trademark conflicts, preventing domain name collisions, combating cybersquatting, and maintaining the integrity, stability, and predictability of the namespace*" but there are other policies for driving those goals, even some which are still in the making.
However, as your GNSO Liaison, I can only bring what is being discussed currently and narrowly for input in order to determine if we, as a group, want to have a say in this STRICT issue.
Dear Bill,
The proposed position being discussed is to support a ban, and with no exceptions. However, the Board has made it clear that it would be unworkable for ICANN org to be responsible for a blanket ban, which is why the approach proposed is a crowd-source one, i.e. anyone can notify ICANN org of the 2 instances that I discussed: 1- where a singular or plural version of an existing gTLD (or Blocked Name per Annex A) has been applied-for; or 2- where two (or more) applied-for strings are singular and plural versions of each other.
In both situations, reference to a dictionary supporting the claim must be provided to facilitate verification. We can exercise further thought on the definition of 'dictionary' in implementation as we have been discouraged from being too prescriptive at this point.
And the crowd-sourcing approach means that if no one notifies ICANN org or is unable to substantiate their claim by reference to a dictionary (likely per the satisfaction of a panel empowered by ICANN) then the impacted application (in scenario 1) or applications (in scenario 2) can proceed to the next steps of evaluation (which they still need to pass to succeed in getting the string)
Dear Roberto,
While I appreciate your remarks about "confusingly similar", I have to again stress that we are limited at this juncture to only the issue of singular/plural of the same word in the same language. I also appreciate it's not the best response to your input but it's the only one I have to offer.
Respectfully, Justine
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 15:19, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Wise words. Wolfgang
Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> hat am 29.08.2024 23:10 CEST geschrieben:
Hi all
Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable.
“Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull.
Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer.
This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”.
Cheers, Roberto
On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Bill: Responses in line
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different.
....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can.
If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference?
presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see....
I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things.
..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hello Justine, First, thank you for doing the best job possible given the current restraints you find yourself in. As I am often reminded over my 25-plus years of involvement with ICANN, no good deed goes unpunished. Keep up the great work that you are doing. Hello Roberto, Thank you for artfully reminding us of two of the more significant flaws of ICANN and its policy development process: the inability to Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) and the need to always reinvent the wheel. One of the biggest disappointments I have had with ICANN Org and the Board recently is its overly expansive interpretation of how the bylaws prevent it from doing anything that might touch on content. The fact that the ICANN Board cited it in declining to accept (aka rejecting) one of the previous proposals is disappointing. While I think there is almost universal agreement within the ICANN community that it is clearly outside of ICANN’s mission to attempt to regulate content on the internet, the inconvenient truth is ICANN has seemed to have forgotten that there are sometimes that content is inextricably intertwined to advancing its core mission and must be considered. As I have publicly discussed with Becky Burr in past ICANN meetings, the UDRP (one of ICANN’s most successful consensus policies) relies upon a third-party dispute provider analyzing the use of a domain name (i.e. content appearing on a website) to decide if the registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith or a fair use. Sadly, under the current Board view regarding the ICANN bylaws' content provision, I wonder if the ICANN Board would approve the UDRP if it was presented to them today for adoption. Hello Alan, Bill and Justine, I want to weigh in on this thread a little more articulately than I did on last week’s CPWG call. My BIGGEST concern was a comment that Justine made at the end of her presentation in response to Alan's question about her personal opinion on the issue. Justine responded , and I am paraphrasing here, that this was the best compromise she thought the ICANN Board could live with. ICANN is supposed to be a bottom-up consensus-building organization. Multiple times, the community recommended a proposed solution to the Board, which they did not accept. The Board stating directly/indirectly that this is the best we can accept is de facto top-down policy making. I understand that there are times when the fiduciary obligations of the Board may require it to take a different policy position as advanced by the community, but singular and plurals are not one of them, in my opinion. I actually think the Council small team had it right when they stated that there should be a reputable presumption against having singular and plural TLDs. As I tried to articulate in the .TV and .TVS example from the 2012 round, you can have two TLDs exist, one being the plural of the other, without confusion. Bill just stated in a separate response on the CPWG list, making determinations between singular and plural is hard especially in some non-Latin languages. However, a faithful trustee of a global resource should be able to make these determinations instead of looking for the easiest solution to mitigate any burden on ICANN legal and compliance – with great power comes great responsibility. Best regards, Michael From: Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2024 1:28 AM To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com>; Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: Singular/Plural Strings and End User Confusion Dear Carlton, I mentioned at the call that mitigating risk of end-user confusion remains one of the core goals of the At-Large/ALAC as supported by existing ALAC positions. Apart from this discussed prohibition of singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language being delegated, I can think of another occasion where At-Large input was instrumental towards maintaining this goal - the conservative approach to introduction of allocatable variant gTLD labels. While I agree that the ICANN community could do a better job of taking a consistent overarching approach to policies which govern what ICANN can govern, the fact remains that we are constrained by a combination of factors - ICANN remit per Bylaws, scope in gTLD policy-making per the charter of each PDP process, active monitoring of and timely participation in each PDP, differences in opinion/positions held by various groups impacting the ability to arrive at (some level of) consensus during the PDP, etc etc etc. We have arrived at this juncture because the Board declined to adopt the original consensus-generated GNSO policy recommendation with STRICT regards to this issue of singular/plural words causing consumer confusion from the 2012 round - which as I said, was identified as an issue needing policy intervention. The SubPro PDP had discussed closely related aspects (if memory serves me correctly, including feminine/masculine words, acronyms) but did not come to consensus on those. Which is why the present issue is on "singular-plurals versions of the same word in the same language". Given all the factors that I mentioned above, if we are to have a say in this STRICT issue, then what I discussed at the call is it. Sure, we can consider how to approach what we, as a group, decide is best to address "consumer protection, identity verification, avoiding brand and trademark conflicts, preventing domain name collisions, combating cybersquatting, and maintaining the integrity, stability, and predictability of the namespace" but there are other policies for driving those goals, even some which are still in the making. However, as your GNSO Liaison, I can only bring what is being discussed currently and narrowly for input in order to determine if we, as a group, want to have a say in this STRICT issue. Dear Bill, The proposed position being discussed is to support a ban, and with no exceptions. However, the Board has made it clear that it would be unworkable for ICANN org to be responsible for a blanket ban, which is why the approach proposed is a crowd-source one, i.e. anyone can notify ICANN org of the 2 instances that I discussed: 1- where a singular or plural version of an existing gTLD (or Blocked Name per Annex A) has been applied-for; or 2- where two (or more) applied-for strings are singular and plural versions of each other. In both situations, reference to a dictionary supporting the claim must be provided to facilitate verification. We can exercise further thought on the definition of 'dictionary' in implementation as we have been discouraged from being too prescriptive at this point. And the crowd-sourcing approach means that if no one notifies ICANN org or is unable to substantiate their claim by reference to a dictionary (likely per the satisfaction of a panel empowered by ICANN) then the impacted application (in scenario 1) or applications (in scenario 2) can proceed to the next steps of evaluation (which they still need to pass to succeed in getting the string) Dear Roberto, While I appreciate your remarks about "confusingly similar", I have to again stress that we are limited at this juncture to only the issue of singular/plural of the same word in the same language. I also appreciate it's not the best response to your input but it's the only one I have to offer. Respectfully, Justine On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 15:19, Wolfgang Kleinwächter via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Wise words. Wolfgang Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> hat am 29.08.2024 23:10 CEST geschrieben: Hi all Maybe my post will be off topic, but I feel the desire to explain why this discussion makes me uncomfortable. “Confusingly similar” things exist also in the real world - sorry for considering the domain name system a virtual world, even if there are some very “real" features attached, including money changing hands. The problem, in the real world, is approached by educating people to identify differences, so that they are no longer - or at least less - “confused by similarities”. Bees are confusingly similar to wasps, and some edible mushrooms are confusingly similar to some poisonous ones. The difference between the real and the virtual world is that in the real world you cannot eliminate the “confusing differences”, so you are forced to educate people to learn the differences. Incidentally, these differences and varieties are exactly the things that make the real world so interning and stimulating, and not dull. Back to the practical issue at hand, would it not be more effective - and less complicated - have educational campaigns instead than crafting different and complex rules that, moreover, have to take into account cultural differences that our current mainstream Internet world is by and large even unable to understand? Bill has quoted languages, but there are cultural differences that go even beyond language, and that are not immediately understandable to engineers that come from a different culture, leaving alone the possibility to engineer a solution that takes these differences into account. Disclaimer: I am an engineer. This in not an uncommon problem - and here I am *really* going off topic. It falls in the broad category of “finding an engineering solution to a cultural problem”. All attempts of this type that I am aware of have failed. The problem is that At-Large has to play a role in the Internet community - again, from my very personal point of view - that addresses the wide cultural, economic, social, etc. differences within the At-Large community, not to fall in the trap of supporting one or the other engineering pseudo-solutions that do not solve the problem, but give the impression that “people endorse it”. Cheers, Roberto On 29.08.2024, at 19:24, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Bill: Responses in line ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 16:40, Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Carlton, I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different. ....even with a faultless memory, I would rather think at this point the user is committed to an action. Get it done and see the result. Then, respond as best as you can. If I see plum.org<http://plum.org/>, and the actual name is plums.org<http://plums.org/>, will it occur to me that there's a difference? presence of mind, maybe not! But one could look see.... I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things. ..and we should not wish them to be! Ordinarily, I posit the journey of discovery could be a learning experience. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android<https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Bill, In my mind, the real issue is that if both PLUM and PLUMS exist, a typical user not see a real difference and thus my use the wrong one, possibly opening themselves to fraud or malicious action, but more likely looking for a 2nd level domain in the wrong place and concluding that it has disappeared - More practically trying to find their reservation on hilton.hotel when it is really on hilton.hotels (both fictitious examples). Although not a real user issue, it would also force multiple registrations to reduce the chance that a user would look in the wrong place. The reason we are having this discussion in the first place is that there was no prohibition in the 2012 round, and there was a widespread belief that having both singular and plural TLDs was a bad thing. Bad enough that it was the Registry SG that proposed the first version of the ban. Alan On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:40 PM Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Carlton,
I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different.
If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference? I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things.
Bill Jouris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Alan, I could certainly support a ban. The challenge, as I see it, is that it may well not be obvious to whomever in ICANN is looking at proposed registrations, that something is a plural. English plurals are pretty simple, usually just involving adding S at the end. But French (to take just one example) uses rather more complex changes to signal plurals. And there re so many languages that it rapidly becomes impossible to recognize them all. Accordingly, it seems to me that, whatever policy is finally adopted needs to provide some mechanism for identifying plurals. (Or, for that matter, singulars of something previously registered in the plural form.) My thought is that, as an imperfect approach, new TLD applicants could be required to identify, on their application, the singular/plural of their proposed TLD, regardless of whether they intend to register both (if we decide to allow that). Note that this would also entail reaching out to current TLD holders, to ask them to likewise identify plurals of their TLD. Bill On Thursday, August 29, 2024 at 11:18:39 AM PDT, Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> wrote: Bill, In my mind, the real issue is that if both PLUM and PLUMS exist, a typical user not see a real difference and thus my use the wrong one, possibly opening themselves to fraud or malicious action, but more likely looking for a 2nd level domain in the wrong place and concluding that it has disappeared - More practically trying to find their reservation on hilton.hotel when it is really on hilton.hotels (both fictitious examples). Although not a real user issue, it would also force multiple registrations to reduce the chance that a user would look in the wrong place. The reason we are having this discussion in the first place is that there was no prohibition in the 2012 round, and there was a widespread belief that having both singular and plural TLDs was a bad thing. Bad enough that it was the Registry SG that proposed the first version of the ban. Alan On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 5:40 PM Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: Hi Carlton, I'm all in favor of making the strongest argument possible. But I think it's a mistake to say "Our brief, apparently, is to advocate for the barely attentive end user." "Barely attentive" assumes that the user would have any reason to suspect that the plural of something that he remembers as singular is something entirely different. If I see plum.org, and the actual name is plums.org, will it occur to me that there's a difference? I beg leave to doubt it. It's not that I can't see the difference (part of my job is proofreading, after all). It's just that there is no particular reason to think that the difference is important in this context. Users generally are simply not paranoid enough to be suspicious of these things. Bill Jouris Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:32 AM, Carlton Samuels via CPWG<cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. | | Virus-free.www.avg.com |
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bill Jouris -
Carlton Samuels -
ICANN At-Large Staff -
Justine Chew -
mike palage.com -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda Scartezini -
Wolfgang Kleinwächter