Thanks to Paul for taking us back to key principles.  I have the following comments on the strawman:

 

• Any member of the global community can identify applications which are singular and plurals of each other in the same language. The reporter must provide the applications, the language, and the dictionary used to identify the reported applications.
• This should be “anyone” rather than “any member of the global community”.  The latter is ambiguous.  Does it mean the identifier must be a member of an SO/AC/SG/C?  I don’t believe that is the intention, nor should it be.
• The original staff strawperson included: “ICANN should suggest to the IRT a list of dictionaries for the UN-6 language and, with assistance from the IRT, finalize this list and include it into the AGB. The fact that a particular language or its dictionary is not listed in the AGB must not preclude end-users, applicants, or other community members from identifying singular and plural forms of the same word in the same language”.  I don’t believe anyone has objected to this specific aspect of the staff strawperson, and it does not seem unhelpful to retain it.
• Where there are multiple applications for the same string, then the identification of one of these will serve to identify them all.  In other words if one application for SPRING and one application for SPRINGS are identified, but in fact there are two further competing applications for SPRINGS then all three of the applications for SPRINGS will be treated as having been identified.  This is necessary in order to deliver the consistency of treatment that was at the heard of the SubPro recommendations.
• Staff will review the report to ensure that the three reporting elements are found in the report and validate that the application strings are in fact, singulars/plurals of each other. If they are, then staff will put the applications into a singular/plural contention set.
• Where one or more applications are identified as the singular/plural of an existing TLD then there will be a presumption that the new applications are rejected.
• ICANN should form a singular/plurals panel before which applicants in singular/plural contention sets can submit arguments as to why the two or more application strings will not result in consumer confusion. The panel will decide whether or not to keep the applications in the singular/plural contention set or release them from such contention. The IRT should develop criteria for the panel to consider. The panel's decision will be final and not appealable.
• This avenue should also apply to presumptively rejected TLDs, since we are seeking to keep as close to the intent of the original SubPro recommendations as possible.
• Unless we are going to give some guidance for this assessment of consumer confusion we really are just kicking this problem to the IRT.  At a minimum I believe we ought to make it clear that:
• One manner in which two applicants may demonstrate that there will not be consumer confusion would be by establishing clear delineation as to eligible registrants, based on specific, objective eligibility criteria such as the possession of a licence or professional qualification.
• Applicants will be expected to commit to binding contractual RVCs that will serve to safeguard against such consumer confusion, noting that the iCANN Board has stated that “ICANN should exclude from the Next Round RAs any RVCs and other comparable registry commitments that restrict content in gTLDs”.  Simply stating in the application that the “intent of the TLD is X” will not be sufficient.

 

 

 

Sent on behalf of Paul:

 

Hi everyone,

 

I think we had a good call last week, but we are starting to get bogged down in implementation details, e.g. what would be the criteria for a panel to apply. The Strawman below is meant to get us focused back on the Policy. We can include our various implementation guidance ideas as well and since they will not be policy, we don't have to agree with them at this stage to pass them along to the Council.

 

Best,

Paul

 

Strawman:

 

• Any member of the global community can identify applications which are singular and plurals of each other in the same language. The reporter must provide the applications, the language, and the dictionary used to identify the reported applications.
• Staff will review the report to ensure that the three reporting elements are found in the report and validate that the application strings are in fact, singulars/plurals of each other. If they are, then staff will put the applications into a singular/plural contention set.
• ICANN should form a singular/plurals panel before which applicants in singular/plural contention sets can submit arguments as to why the two or more application strings will not result in consumer confusion. The panel will decide whether or not to keep the applications in the singular/plural contention set or release them from such contention. The IRT should develop criteria for the panel to consider. The panel's decision will be final and not appealable.

 

Please see the proposed agenda for the upcoming call on Monday, 1 July at 1400 UTC:

 

1. Welcome & SOIs
2. Review of Strawman
3. AOB

 

 

 

 

Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar