February 2017 - Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

Sub-Pro WT3: String Similarity and String Confusion Objections
by Karen Day Feb. 26, 2017

Feb. 26, 2017

Dear WT3 members: Continuing on with our discussion last week, we now have the proposals submitted by Jeff Neuman available in Google Docs for us to continue to comment on and/or refine. The link is https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mNrOUrO2_KPa1xUXJ7Glxx_Ps5Aaczes2jEz8E… On our next call, Robin will be leading us through the recommendations for String Confusion Objections and the SWORD tool. In addition we will begin our look into Community issues in ,preparation for the final objection type (Community-based), as well as our future work on community applications and the community priority evaluation process. That call will take place on March 7th at 15:00 UTC. As a final request, we would like your input on what you would like to have discussions on during our face-to-face sessions in Copenhagen. We will touch on this during our upcoming calls of both the full group and our sub-team, but for those of you who may not be available during those times, please share any thoughts you may have either on the list. Thanks, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p5iuw0k0z3j/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=d2bb332eb83bd37e 112e25e7751c52e54fb922234e519726f89516ceebbbd6db> https://participate.icann.org/p5iuw0k0z3j/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/vLPDAw> https://community.icann.org/x/vLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 21 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_v LPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ vLPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_df2LlSlZOs9zdVlLaqSPUc8gEYIJeOcUohBNBou2_ k&s=CQ-9WVCMuc-3Ac3E2TopHy6r_HOU3QIoa9znfQ8r9ck&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_df2LlSlZOs9zdVlLaqSPUc8gEYIJeOcUohBNBou2_k&s=CQ -9WVCMuc-3Ac3E2TopHy6r_HOU3QIoa9znfQ8r9ck&e= Terri Agnew:everyone can scroll themselves Rubens Kuhl:Me Gg Levine (NABP):Yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Rudy Mendoza:+1 Rubens Kuhl:Full reading in the WG is my opinion. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and I am ok with full read in Mondays call Rubens Kuhl:In the plenary session. Terri Agnew:finding echo Rubens Kuhl:There is a general feeeling among applicants about SWORD not being useful or representative. Karen Day:did we lose steve? Rubens Kuhl:I'm hearing Steve... Jeff Neuman:i hear you through adobe Kevin Kreuser:hear you fine Karen Day:sorry must have been me I'll try to come back in Terri Agnew:@Steve, I am able to hear you as well. Karen please let me know if a dial out is needed Karen Day:I"m back sorry for the interruption. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):and online shopping in Japanese Jeff Neuman:I would like to go back to string similarity review after review of these slides Rubens Kuhl:The cases with no responses could be the applicants agreeing to being placed in the contention set. .KID and .KIDS were like this, where all 3 applicants agreed so they preferred to not pay to respond and accept all as a single contention set. Jeff Neuman:Here is the standard for string similarity review: Standard for String Confusion String confusion exists where a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusion to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):+1 to Rubens Jeff Neuman:Karen? Karen Day:still haveing issues. sorry. Jeff go ahead Terri Agnew:@Karen, let me know if a dial out would be helpful. I see your mic is active and unmuted Terri Agnew:Karen is now on a telephone connection Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I was part of the RySG team that developed the recommendation Jeff is describing. Trang Nguyen:@jeff, so essentially the recommendation is to expand string similarity review to encompass meaning as well (new vs. news)? Karen Day:sounds like I still have no audio Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Trang: No. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):New/News was not a good example. Karen Day:my sincere apologies everyone, but it seems my company is experiencing a VOIP outage now. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):yes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):or, cake and cakes (as used in the doc) Jon Nevett:.child and .children too? Jon Nevett:how about ING? Rubens Kuhl:.cool x .kühl ? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):not covered Jon Nevett:conduct and conducting? Jon Nevett:should we expand? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Jon: Up to this group. RySG sub team decided not to go beyond singular and plural Jon Nevett:right -- think and thinking is no more or less confusing than child and children Jeff Neuman:potentially.....but what about .book and .booking? There are more examples where adding an ing is not necessarily confusing Jeff Neuman:As long as there is a short appeals process for someone to challenge the string similarity review as well, I think we are covered Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Rubens: My recollection from the RySG subteam discussion was that we didn't want to cross languages/scripts because of the potential disadvantage to IDNs. Jeff Neuman:@Kristina - correct Rubens Kuhl:Most phising activity does not require support from the TLD. Unfortunately firstbank.tk is as effective as first.bank. Hopefully that might change in the future, but the current situation of phishing is not much affected by TLD. Terri Agnew:@Jeff, your mic is not active at this time avri doria:when we say we don't support plurals, do we mean they go into a contention seet? someone may prefer the plural. Terri Agnew:@jeff, it is now active Rubens Kuhl:@Avri, I believe it would be contention set if similar to applicant, denied if similar to existent TLD. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Avri: Yes, they go into a contention set avri doria:ot it. just checking. the phrase don't accept threw me Jon Nevett:but new and news ok Rubens Kuhl:.campus x .campi Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Alan: Yes, that's why we referenced using a dictionary to determine the plural Jon Nevett:forum and fora would be in the same set avri doria:does the rule apply across all languages? Annebeth Lange, ccNSO 2:In Norwegian it is another way - adding "en" for singular and "ene" for plural. But I suppose not many Norwegian years will be applied for Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):i can answer this . . . avri doria:both inter-language and intra-language Rubens Kuhl:Straß, Stras·se avri doria:ok only intra-language avri doria:any lnaguage for which tere is a dictionary? Greg Shatan:Was cross-language but not cross script considered? Greg Shatan:That would avoid the IDN issue. Rubens Kuhl:@Avri, I think languages without written form is already excluded from the domain name system. Like Tupi-Guarani. Rubens Kuhl:(are) avri doria:just lookiing for a generalizable rule Jeff Neuman:i think we should defer Jeff Neuman:until next call Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 07 March 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Jeff Neuman:I think we should also spend some time next time on String confusion objections as well since we only hit similarity Jeff Neuman:There were 2 other recommendations Terri Agnew:@Karen, apology is noted for 07 March call Jeff Neuman:good call! Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all. Bye! avri doria:bye, thanks

1 0

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 SubTeam Meeting 21 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 21 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, the referenced slides are attached along with excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 21 February 2017 1. Update from PDP Full Group -- two full group meetings will be held prior to ICANN58 to allow the group time to finalize CC2 questions. 2. Review of CC2 Questions from WT3 -- Full reading of the questions will take place in plenary on Monday. -- No additional feedback from the group. -- WT members are encouraged to provide feedback directly in the document or on the mailing list before the end of the week. 3. Confusing Similarity Objections and String Similarity Final Issue Report Sec.4.4.3 AGB Module 2.2.1 AGB Module 3.2.2.1 AGB Module 3.5.1 AGB Module 4.1 -- Background provided by staff -- There is a little bit of miscommunication. We don't have slides on string similarity. This is the excerpt from the Issue Report (4.4.2 String Similarity). -- Standard -- so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. -- Panel looked at a few things and the outcomes were different depending on what they were looking at. -- 4 sets of circumstances. -- Took into account the sort algorithm -- informed by not determinative. -- Questions and Concerns: treatment of singular and plurals (touched on in the email Jeff circulated). Also relating to timing to release the results of the review. String Confusion Objections (SCOs) (see slides): Background: -- One of the four objections grounds (slide 2). -- Standing to file limited to existing TL operator -- between an applied-for TLD and TLD that it currently operates. -- Outcome is both applications are placed in an objection set. -- Carried out by ICDR. -- Applicant Guidebook language (slide 3) -- Statistics 67 total SCOs. Perceived inconsistent SCO Expert Determinations (slide 4): -- Many have perceived that SCO outcomes have been inconsistent. -- 11 Feb 2014 published Proposed Review Mechanism to Address Perceived Inconsistent Expert Determinations on SCOs: Defined inconsistency. Discussion of principles. -- Proposal: ICDR would be a panel of last resort and "Could the Expert Panel have reasonably come to the decision reached on the underlying SCO through an appropriate application of the standard of review as set forth in the AGB procedural rules?" Public Comment (slide 5): -- 8 said do not adopt the proposed mechanism. -- 2 said adopt -- 5 said adopt with expanded scope -- 3 said do not adopt or expand scope -- All should be reviewed or do not adopt -- Recommend modifications if adopted Board Resolution (slide 6): -- NGPC laid out a couple of sets CAM/COM and Commercial Connect/Amazon reversed. (Car/Cars self-resolved.) Singular/Plurals (Slide 7): -- Also an NGPC Resolution -- no changes to the existing mechanism in the AGB. Questions/Issues for Consideration (Slide 8): -- As there is evidence of inconsistent SCO determinations 1) do policy recommendations need to be revised 2) does the standard of String Confusion in the ABG need to be revised? 3) Does there need to be a method to challenge/appeal decisions? -- Although NGPC determined that singular/plurals did not meet the definitioin of inconsistent expert determinations, should guidance be developed? Discussion: -- The reason to include String Similarity as well as Confusion is that they should be two sides if the same coin. The standard in String Similarity was very limited -- visual similarity. The SCO process had a broader scope to challenge. But we found that strings that were similar/plurals would naturally fall in the same review. No findings of similarity in an existing TLD because no one thought to apply for a plural of an existing TLD as these would be ruled similar. -- A group of registries were working on trying to come up with recommendations to pass on to this group. See this in the next few weeks as a proposal. Things that are plurals or singular of an existing string they should not proceed. -- Question: Essentially the recommendation is to expand string similarity review to encompass meaning as well (new vs news)? Answer: Yes, only with relation to singular and plurals. Not for the string similarity panels to look at meaning. No, not really looking at meaning, but whether something is a plural or singular. Such as cake or cakes. We are asking for there to be a short appeal-type mechanism. -- Conversation on the list that seems to go to Cool vs .kühl Also the chat relating to linguists. -- Experiences from the last round: (Karen Bernstein) 1) if there is a plural of an existing string it should not be allowed. 2) on linguists: when someone is registry a domain name in an extension they will be confused because of collision and phishing. -- Confusingly similar was something ALAC spent a lot of time on. There is enough subtle difference between the confusingly similar evaluation and the objection process. Objection was a much more nuanced and wider scope -- would a user likely get confused. We need to do a much better job on what is clearly not allowed, but we have to do a much better job outlining what the panelists are supposed to be comparing. -- One clearly doesn't want to make it easier for phishers, but users are undiscriminating so it doesn't really matter. -- If it a plural of an existing string then it gets thrown out. Not advocating for a huge broadening of the standard. Add visually similar for plurals. The objection process would still be much broader. -- Question: Would not want to say adding an "s" is visually similar. Are there other ways of indicating plural or singular other than adding an "s"? Answer: Could use a dictionary as a tool because there would be applied-for strings where simply adding an "s" is not how you would make the plural. It was meant to be intra-language. In the applicable language. -- Registry group said "plural", which could mean many different things depending on the language. Next Steps: Take the proposal from the registries group and put it in a Google doc to start to consider it; also, consolidate what we have discussed to fine tune it off line in a Google doc. >From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): New/News was not a good example. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): yes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): or, cake and cakes (as used in the doc) Jon Nevett: .child and .children too? Jeff Neuman: Yes. Jon Nevett: how about ING? Jeff Neuman: Covered under the SCO process. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): not covered. Jon Nevett: conduct and conducting? should we expand? Rubens Kuhl: .cool x .kühl ? Jeff Neuman: Not sure they are plural or singular of each other. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jon: Up to this group. RySG sub team decided not to go beyond singular and plural Jon Nevett: right -- think and thinking is no more or less confusing than child and children Jeff Neuman: potentially.....but what about .book and .booking? There are more examples where adding an “ing” is not necessarily confusing. As long as there is a short appeals process for someone to challenge the string similarity review as well, I think we are covered Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Rubens: My recollection from the RySG subteam discussion was that we didn't want to cross languages/scripts because of the potential disadvantage to IDNs. Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - correct Rubens Kuhl: Most phishing activity does not require support from the TLD. Unfortunately firstbank.tk is as effective as first.bank. Hopefully that might change in the future, but the current situation of phishing is not much affected by TLD. avri doria: when we say we don't support plurals, do we mean they go into a contention seet? someone may prefer the plural. Rubens Kuhl: @Avri, I believe it would be contention set if similar to applicant, denied if similar to existent TLD. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Avri: Yes, they go into a contention set avri doria: ot it. just checking. the phrase don't accept threw me. Jon Nevett: but new and news ok Rubens Kuhl: .campus x .campi Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: Yes, that's why we referenced using a dictionary to determine the plural. Jon Nevett: forum and fora would be in the same set avri doria: does the rule apply across all languages? Annebeth Lange, ccNSO 2: In Norwegian it is another way - adding "en" for singular and "ene" for plural. But I suppose not many Norwegian years will be applied for Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): i can answer this . . . avri doria: both inter-language and intra-language Rubens Kuhl: Straß, Stras·se avri doria: ok only intra-language avri doria: any lnaguage for which tere is a dictionary? Kristina Rosette: Presumably yes. Greg Shatan: Was cross-language but not cross script considered? That would avoid the IDN issue. Kristina Rosette: Focusing on the language rather than the script. Rubens Kuhl: @Avri, I think languages without written form are already excluded from the domain name system. Like Tupi-Guarani. avri doria: just lookiing for a generalizable rule

1 0

Proposals on String Similarity/String Confusion Objections
by Jeff Neuman Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

All, A group of registry operators came up with some recommendations for Subsequent Procedures including recommendations on string similarity and string confusion objections. As this is still being reviewed by the RySG as a whole it does not have any formal status yet. That said, these recommendations apply to the subject matter for our meeting in a few hours. Therefore, I am submitting this in my personal capacity for now. I look forward to discussing these on the call. ************************************************************************************ Recommendation 1: String Similarity Review It is the opinion of the String Sub-team that GNSO Policy #2 is satisfactory for the purpose of String Similarity. GNSO Policy #2 states: “Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top‐level domain or a Reserved Name.” It is our recommendation that implementation of this policy can be improved pertaining to applications received by ICANN for singular and plural strings. More specifically, the scope of the String Similarity Review should be broadened to encompass single/plurals of TLDs on a per-language basis in addition to the existing visual similarity standard. Contention sets would be formed on a per-language basis. A dictionary will be the tool used to determine the singular and/or plural version of the string for the specific language. In this expanded process, applications for single/plural variations of each string would be placed in a contention set and applications for a single/plural variations of an existing string would not be permitted. By way of example, if applications were submitted for the strings .gâteau, .gâteaux, .cake, and .cakes, then the strings .gâteau and .gâteux (French) would be placed in contention with one another, but not with the corresponding translations .cake and .cakes (English), which would comprise a separate contention set. Additional contention sets could continue to be formed through the String Confusion Objection Process. Recommendation 2: String Confusion Objections During the 2015 round, the String Confusion Objection process resulted in indirect contention situations for identical strings proposing similar use cases. For example, in one objection determination, the strings .car/.cars were determined to be confusingly similar, while in another they were determined to not be confusingly similar. This resulted in a situation where the ability or inability for the two strings to coexist depended on which party prevailed at auction. This outcome was seen as inconsistent by many in the community (both objectors and respondents) and saw late stage intervention by the ICANN board to introduce a limited appeals process. The appeals process was only made available to the applicants who were placed in contention, and not to the party filing the objection. We believe that these could be largely avoided by allowing a single String Confusion Objection to be filed against all applicants for a particular string, rather than requiring a unique objection to be filed against each application. We propose the following: * An objector could file a single objection that would extend to all applications for an identical string. * Given that an objection that encompassed several applications would still require greater work to process and review, the string confusion panel could introduce a tiered pricing structure for these sets. Each applicant for that identical string would still prepare a response to the objection. * The same panel would review all documentation associated with the objection. Each response would be reviewed on its own merits to determine whether it was confusingly similar. * The panel would issue a single determination that identified which applications would be in contention. Any outcome that resulted in an indirect contention would be explained as part of the response. * A limited appeals process should be available to both the objectors and the respondents to handle perceived inconsistencies. Recommendation 3: Sword Tool We recommend that ICANN do away with the Sword Tool that was presented to applicants as part of the 2012 round. There was little correlation between the Sword Results and the actual outcomes of the String Similarity Review and String Confusion Objection Process and, thus, that the tool was more misleading to applicants than helpful. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman(a)valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman(a)comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4
by Karen Bernstein Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Hi Folks, For tomorrow’s meeting on WT3, I’d like to share with you my experience with the string confusion contention set I was involved with. I represented the Government of Montenegro (which provides the .Me ccTLD) against Google’s proposed gTLD for .Meme in a string confusion contention set. A clueless panelist was appointed who was an admiralty lawyer from British Columbia. Very obscure. He also made his own conclusions that if the proposed gTLD were to be delegated it would not be confusing because he “thought so,” despite reputable external evidence that there might be collision problems and customer confusion. Should my client have to hire a linguist to prove the point? Apparently, ICANN’s linguists didn’t see a problem with it. Perhaps we can talk about whether it makes sense to include an ICANN-appointed panelist for future string confusion contentions. Looking forward to the call tomorrow! Very truly yours, Karen J. Bernstein Bernstein IP 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10166 Tel: (212) 339-9955 Fax: (212) 682-0278 E-Mail: kjb(a)bernsteinip.com Web: www.bernsteinip.com Skype: K.Bernsteinlaw This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please forward the email back and delete all copies of the message and attachments. > On Feb 17, 2017, at 4:34 PM, gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-request(a)icann.org wrote: > > Send Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 mailing list submissions to > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-request(a)icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-owner(a)icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Work Track 3: Agenda for 21Feb17 @20:00 UTC (Karen Day) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:34:27 +0000 > From: Karen Day <Karen.Day(a)sas.com> > To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3(a)icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Work Track 3: Agenda for 21Feb17 @20:00 > UTC > Message-ID: <681f95e2119e424fa8c2b371f4dd8b6f(a)MERCMBX34D.na.SAS.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi Everyone, > > Hope you have all had a good week and that those of you who attended NCPH Intersessional had safe travels ?there and back again?. > > We will have our next WT3 call this coming Tuesday, Feb 21st at 20:00 UTC. The main focus of our time this week will be Confusing Similarity Objections and String Similarity Evaluations as these two topics are quite often intermingled. I have attached the agenda here for your review. > > In addition to the applicable sections of the Final Issue Report and AGB shown in the agenda, here are a few more links to some background documents you may wish to review prior to the call. > > ? https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sco-framework-principles-2014-02-11-en > > ? http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/proposed-sco-framework-prin… > > ? https://www.icann.org/news/public-comment/report-comments-sco-framework-pri… > However, before we jump into these topics, we will take a few minutes to review what we have so far for our CC2 questions. We are going to need to finalize the WT3 specific questions so that they may be formally presented to the plenary session of the PDP on 27th. To date we have had virtually no input on these questions from the WT3 membership. Robin is taking a final pass over what leadership and staff have pulled together thus far, but please do take time to review and comment on them this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… > > I look forward to talking with you all on the 21st. > > Have a great weekend, > Karen > ____________________________ > Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP > Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager > Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ? Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ? karen.day(a)sas.com > SAS Institute Inc.? SAS Campus Drive ? Cary, NC 27513 USA > www.sas.com > > [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert] > >

3 3

Work Track 3: Agenda for 21Feb17 @20:00 UTC
by Karen Day Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Hi Everyone, Hope you have all had a good week and that those of you who attended NCPH Intersessional had safe travels “there and back again”. We will have our next WT3 call this coming Tuesday, Feb 21st at 20:00 UTC. The main focus of our time this week will be Confusing Similarity Objections and String Similarity Evaluations as these two topics are quite often intermingled. I have attached the agenda here for your review. In addition to the applicable sections of the Final Issue Report and AGB shown in the agenda, here are a few more links to some background documents you may wish to review prior to the call. · https://www.icann.org/public-comments/sco-framework-principles-2014-02-11-en · http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/proposed-sco-framework-prin… · https://www.icann.org/news/public-comment/report-comments-sco-framework-pri… However, before we jump into these topics, we will take a few minutes to review what we have so far for our CC2 questions. We are going to need to finalize the WT3 specific questions so that they may be formally presented to the plenary session of the PDP on 27th. To date we have had virtually no input on these questions from the WT3 membership. Robin is taking a final pass over what leadership and staff have pulled together thus far, but please do take time to review and comment on them this week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH… I look forward to talking with you all on the 21st. Have a great weekend, Karen ____________________________ Karen L. Day, NCCP ACP Brand Protection & Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ Mobile: + 1 919-599-4356 ▪ karen.day(a)sas.com SAS Institute Inc.▪ SAS Campus Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.sas.com [S285-sas100K-TPTK40K-vert]

2 1

Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 07 February
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 07 February. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. In addition, please see the attached documents referenced below – the slides on applicant freedom of expression, the CC2 draft questions, and the legal rights objection strawman edits from Paul McGrady. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 07 February 2017 1. Update from PDP Full Group -- No call this week. Resume next week. -- Getting volunteers to form small drafting teams for some of the overarching questions. -- Keeping an eye on the work tracks to develop the CC2 questions. -- Working towards Copenhagen for the full PDP WG meeting on Saturday, 11 March, tentatively 08;30-12;15 local time. 2. Review of CC2 Questions from WT3. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH…. -- Staff and Karen have circulated the link to the Google doc of the CC2 document for review and participation in developing the questions. (See link above.) -- Would like to hear from WT3 members about the questions. No questions yet on new gTLD applicant freedom of expression, but hope to have them after today's discussion (as noted also in the chat). -- Are we ready to say that these are the questions to send to the full PDP WG? 2 positive checkmarks, one x mark -- need more discussion on legal rights objections questions. 3. 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 *Review of Strawman Proposal with Paul McGrady (attached) -- Discussed this previously and had some good feedback. -- Paul McGrady created a strawman (attached). 3.2.2.2 Legal Rights Objection First Para. -- Changed first sentence to "Any rightsholder". -- Changed "infringed" to "abused by the applied-for gTLD..." -- "infringed" made this unworkable since it is so narrow. 3.5.2 Legal Rights Objection: -- Added "or was filed for the purpose of triggering a private auction proceeding designed to obtain a payment from the objecter." -- 1. Whether the applied-for gTLD is identical [strike "or"] similar, add "or a translation or transliteration of" add open parens "(" prior to "including" and closed "parens ")" after "meaning". -- 3. Changed to "a applicant, in advocance of...conducted a trademark search for trademarks corresponding to the applied-for string: b. if the objection is based on common law rights, whether or not the applicant knew or should have known of the objector's mark", addition of new sections d and e. -- 5. Added "In the event that the string does not correspond to a famous trademark owned by the objector..." -- 6. Added new text [see the document] -- 7. Deleted as this can be gamed with mere corporate filings. -- 8. Added new text [see the document]. Discussion: -- Briefing on IGO/INGO PDP -- we need a placeholder where we mention IGO rights to make sure we are consistent with the final outcome of the PDP. -- Determining intent -- need to see if Paul's proposal addresses that or if there are other approaches. >From the chat: -- Jeff Neuman: Paul - what other harms other than Trademark Infringement (or likely infringement) would you recommend this objection address? -- Paul McGrady: Infringement is using a trademark for goods or services in a way that leads to consumer confusion in a way that suggests the two sources are somehow related. The primary form of abuse is having a registry that had an unlimited right at the second level for any type of goods and services. Primary concern is issue of dilution rather than infringement. -- Rubens Kuhl: Jeff, note that LRO is currently the vehicle for IGO objections as well... -- Jeff Neuman: Would you recommend the doctrine of foreign equivalents apply to only trademarks or would yo propose that they apply to registry operators of existing gTLDs? -- Rubens Kuhl: Even though it was not used in 2012. -- Jon Nevett: what % of english dictionary terms have a trademark in any jurisdiction in the world? Disagree with that too. -- avri doria: seems to require knowing intent, which is something i thought we said could not be known (personal view). -- Rubens Kuhl: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-… (With the caveat disclaimer that LRO criteria is not the same as TMCH criteria). -- Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The policy recommendation states: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others .. . . Are you proposing that the policy recommendation be revised to replace "infringe" with "abuse" the legal rights of others? If not, what is the rationale for the disconnect between the policy recommendations and the change to the LRO standing that you've proposed? -- Paul McGrady: I hadn't considered whether this would require a policy change, but we would need to look at that. We would need to look at recommendation 3 if what we have now is suitable, or if it means the same as section 3.2.2.2. It says "must not infringe existing legal rights of others" but may mean something different from the legal rights objection. -- Rubens Kuhl: Real life problem, evidenced by Merck x Merck: if marks have jurisdiction boundaries, does any restriction require geolocation-based blocking, since the Internet is global in nature ? -- avri doria: what does abuse mean? seems rather open. -- Rubens Kuhl: Kristina, I believe the timing here is exactly to see whether policy recommendation changes are needed. It seems this would be a required policy change to support for an implementation such as Paul is proposing. -- Jon Nevett: I need to drop in a few min too -- have LOTS of concerns with this proposal as well . We should look at all the LROs from the 2012 round and test any proposed changes. Paul, what kinds of cases are you trying to get at with the proposal? Think the proposal is way too overbroad. -- Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): My recollection (although going back to 2007-08) is that the GNSO intended to limit the LRO to trademark infringement, but I think it's something that needs to be reviewed. -- Rubens Kuhl: Paul, isn't what you suggested covered by UDRP ? For instance, if I register chairing.coach, I'm not trying to use to something to be used with Leather goods... while if someone registers leather.coach or bag.coach, it's likely to be infringing but could be took down by UDRP. (UDRP and URS, in fact) -- Jon Nevett: if we can't demonstrate a problem, then why are we looking for a solution? Questions: -- Overriding question -- what are you trying to do with this proposal? What was wrong with the LROs in the first round that you want to change for this round? -- Answer (Paul McGrady): I tried to walk through the explanations for the changes. Are there specific proposals that you have concerns about? The basic concern is if you apply for a registry with intention of abuse and infringement doesn't apply. Applicants should do a trademark search and show that abuse is not the intent. There is potential for abuse. 6. Introduction of Topic: New gTLD Applicant Freedom of Expression (See attached slides and excerpt from the Issue Report at: https://community.icann.org/x/Uz2AAw) -- Background (slide 2) -- Issue description (slide 3) -- snap shot of where the discussion group was at the time it wrote its report. -- "ICANN's Procedures and Policies in the Light of Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and Democratic Values" (slide 4) -- Questions and Concerns Related to the Topic (slide 5) -- Rationale for Policy Development (slide 6)

1 0

Recording, AC Chat & Attendance from New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team Track 3 String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 7, 2017

Feb. 7, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p91ejjbni68/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=3301ff0f1fff3dfc 78bdba634380b2dc21423ab6ed922f1b623118fc8ae11f01> https://participate.icann.org/p91ejjbni68/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3 Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uLPDAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 07 February 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 07 February 2017 at 15:00 UTC Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_u LPDAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ uLPDAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm 8&s=RRXrg6_bu9nsCACp33nKxezsGQZlgIzdkNXQJsZ1GI4&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=RR Xrg6_bu9nsCACp33nKxezsGQZlgIzdkNXQJsZ1GI4&e= Gg Levine (NABP):I apologise in advance; I need to drop off at 9:30 for another call. Terri Agnew:thank you for this information Gg Paul McGrady:Good morning, afternoon, evening! avri doria:nothing to add Jeff Neuman:Steve will be making breakfast for us avri doria:they don't provide coffee any more do they? Emily Barabas:CC2 Google Doc: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen t_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume nt_d_1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR-5Fb6-2DjH2Wl5eVH-2DWWM_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1 u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn -H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=IEPU33oP5L7u5B3Zeh ThtBFP49V_7LnUPkYSivyKops&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=IE PU33oP5L7u5B3ZehThtBFP49V_7LnUPkYSivyKops&e= Jeff Neuman:There are no Freedom of Expression questions yet Paul McGrady:@Jeff - correct. Paul McGrady:I was confused in thinking that 3.3 modified 3.2, buut it appears that they are seperate entirely. Jon Nevett:Agree -- walk through it all and then we shoot at it Emily Barabas:The document is unsynced -- everyone can scroll for themselves Karen Day:thanks, Emily Jeff Neuman:Paul - what other harms other than Trademark Infringement (or likely infringement) would you recommend this policy address? Jeff Neuman:Sorry, this objection address? Rubens Kuhl:Jeff, note that LRO is currently the vehicle for IGO objections as well... Jeff Neuman:Would you recommend the doctrine of foreign equivalents apply to only trademarks or would yo propose that they apply to registry operators of existing gTLDs? Rubens Kuhl:Even though it was not used in 2012. Jon Nevett:what % of english dictionary terms have a trademark in any jurisdiction in the world? Jon Nevett:disagree with that too avri doria:seems to require knowing intent, which is something i thought we said could not be known (personal view) Rubens Kuhl:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainnamewire.com_ 2014_02_10_how-2Dcommon-2Dwords-2Dlike-2Dpizza-2Dmoney-2Dand-2Dshopping-2Den ded-2Dup-2Din-2Dthe-2Dtrademark-2Dclearinghouse-2Dfor-2Dnew-2Dtlds_&d=DwIFaQ &c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qf qa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jca56Ctcm8&s=DTdvSU4Hvrd 8ngfU0GvT_-P9m3zmMGnSSvs8YvAAqeU&e= Rubens Kuhl:(With the caveat disclaimer that LRO criteria is not the same as TMCH criteria) Jeff Neuman:All - I need to drop, but will listen to the rest of the call later. Jeff Neuman:Thanks Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):The policy recommendation states: Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others .. . . Are you proposing that the policy recommendation be revised to replace "infringe" with "abuse"? If not, what is the rationale for the disconnect between the policy recommendations and the change to the LRO standing that you've proposed? Rubens Kuhl:Real life problem, evidenced by Merck x Merck: if marks have jurisdiction boundaries, does any restriction require geolocation-based blocking, since the Internet is global in nature ? avri doria:what does abuse mean? seems rather open. Rubens Kuhl:Kristina, I believe the timing here is exactly to see whether policy recommendation changes are needed. It seems this would be a required policy change to support for an implementation such as Paul is proposing. Jon Nevett:I need to drop in a few min too -- have LOTS of concerns with this proposal as well Jon Nevett:we should look at all the LROs from the 2012 round and test any proposed changes Jon Nevett:Paul, what kinds of cases are you trying to get at with the proposal? Think the proposal is way too overbroad. Alan Greenberg:COuld I please be unmuted (I can't seem to do it myself) Steve Chan:@Alan, done, I believe Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):My recollection (although going back to 2007-08) is that the GNSO intended to limit the LRO to trademark infringement, but I think it's something that needs to be reviewed. Rubens Kuhl:Paul, isn't what you suggested covered by UDRP ? For instance, if I register chairing.coach, I'm not trying to use to something to be used with Leather goods... while if someone registers leather.coach or bag.coach, it's likely to be infringing but could be took down by UDRP. Rubens Kuhl:(UDRP and URS, in fact) Jon Nevett:citing a second level name as evidence of infringement on a top level name is not useful -- we have the UDRP and URS to deal with 2nd level names Rubens Kuhl:Have to drop now. Will hear the remaining of the call later. Jon Nevett:if we can't demonstrate a problem, then why are we looking for a solution? Emily Barabas:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann .org_x_Uz2AAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2d XAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=l1LwM8oTtzxX4waejW_qHSwp1LCSLHiU9Jc a56Ctcm8&s=7MXUOVWoGSLcida6YkgaK0k4E2I8GVXvWHgBJRklEEQ&e= Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Have to drop for the RA Amendments webinar. Thanks, all. Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team - Track 3 - String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. Robin Gross:Thanks Karen and all, bye!

1 0

Work Track 3 - 07Feb17 15:00 - Agenda & Materials
by Karen Day Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Dear all, Attached please find the agenda for our WT3 call tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. The main focus of our meeting will be the proposed revisions to the Legal Rights Objections process as set forth by Paul McGrady. Paul will be leading us through this discussion. A copy is attached for your ease of reference. The second thing which we need to wrap up is our input on CC2 questions from our WT (Attached). The plan is to discuss the full CC2 with the full PDP group on the 13th. so we need to get sign-off on our area this week. As always, if you are unable to make the call tomorrow, please make us of the email list to share your input with the group. Looking forward to speaking with you all tomorrow, Karen

1 0