Thanks Jeff, for this detailed explanation.  So are you saying that unless there is a notification to ICANN Org in relation to the singulars/plurals issue (if we get to such an adopted policy), there will be no String Similarity review of that singular/plural set of applications?  Is that your conclusion in relation to the "out of scope" language shown below from the new String Similarity Review guidelines?

"A.5 Non-goal: Plurals and Similar Spelling Variations
In certain European languages, plural terms can be formed by very simple spelling changes, such as adding the letter ‘s’. Depending on the language, this can be the dominant pattern, or it can be one of several patterns. This makes the two labels containing singular and plural spelling of the same word, potentially both visually and semantically confusable. The confusion might be less acute whenever the spellings for singular and plural deviate more. However, it is not rare for two unrelated words having the same spelling, and for either spelling to match a different form of a different word altogether (for example, many English verbs have a form that also adds an ‘s’ and many nouns and verbs share spellings).
Finally, the connection between singular and plural spelling is limited to a given language; there are cases where a plural might match the spelling of an unrelated word in a different language, or where languages share a common word, but have different plurals.
EXAMPLE: 'canals' (English) vs. 'canaux' (French)
EXAMPLE: 'bureaus' (English) vs. 'bureaux' (French)
Such issues make the problem at once not-so-tractable as well as not that different from cases like “color” vs. “colour” which are related to regional spelling differences of the same word.
These and similar considerations have been ruled out of scope of String Similarity Review for the time being. They are mentioned here only to note them explicitly as a non-goal. Because of the nature of the European writing systems, including the fact that two of them (Latin and Cyrillic) are shared by very large numbers of distinct languages and regional writing systems, t his particular set of issues would apply most notably to the scripts covered here and is therefore discussed in this annex."

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024


On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 6:15 PM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Anne,

We have a funny acronym problem here.

In 2012, the String Similarity Panel was indeed ICC, but not the ICC most people think of.  It was not the International Chamber of Commerce, but rather a company called InterConnect Communications (BTW, another case against IGO acronym protection...but i digress).  

String Confusion objections were heard by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (which I believe is a division of the American Arbitration Association).  

So with that interesting confusion out of the way, I do not believe that ICANN has even sought expressions of interest for who will serve as the string similarity review evaluators (but I may not be up to date).  So, whether it is the InterConnect Communications or not is TBD.  

To answer the direct question, it would appear that if no one files a notification, the string similarity panel would likely not find confusing similarity and therefore it would be up to an objector to object on string confusion grounds.  This assumes (a) that the objection filing period is open at the time the string similarity results are out, and (b) the objector has standing to even raise the issue.  

Also keep in mind that the rules for the string similarity review has already been out for public comment (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/strategic-initiatives/public-comment-summary-report-string-similarity-review-guidelines-15-05-2024-en.pdf) and that period has been long closed.  The comment report can be found at https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/strategic-initiatives/public-comment-summary-report-string-similarity-review-guidelines-15-05-2024-en.pdf.

The latest Guidelines are at:  https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/internationalized-domain-names-idn/string-similarity-review-guidelines-19-march-2024-19-03-2024-en.pdf Most of it covers variants (which is the most complicated issue).  Singulars and Plurals were out of scope for the guidelines (See Annex A Pg. 52).

 
From: Anne ICANN via GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST <gnso-subpropendingrecs-st@icann.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2024 2:32 PM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Cc: gnso-subpropendingrecs-st@icann.org <gnso-subpropendingrecs-st@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] Re: Message From Paul & Proposed Agenda | SubPro Small Team Plus | Monday, 1 July 2024
 
Thanks Steve and Paul,
This looks good to me.  I'm just wondering what happens when singular and plural are presented and no one notifies ICANN of a conflict.  Will the singular and plural go into a String Similarity Review process anyway?  Wasn't this an outside panel determination in the 2012 round?   Was it determined at ICC? 

Are we recommending (A) an internal ICANN panel for singulars and plurals - but only when a party notifies ICANN of the conflict and (b)  if no notification of a conflict to ICANN, the String Similarity set may or may not end up at ICC?

My recollection is that 2013 String Similarity Review processes for the 2012 round were quite detailed but there may be new guidelines in the draft AGB for the next round.

Anne


Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024


On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 2:00 PM Steve Chan via GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST <gnso-subpropendingrecs-st@icann.org> wrote:

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

 

 

 

 

Steven Chan


VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations

 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


                                                                  

Email: steve.chan@icann.org

Skype: steve.chan55

Mobile: +1.310.339.4410

 

Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

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

_______________________________________________
GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST mailing list -- gnso-subpropendingrecs-st@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gnso-subpropendingrecs-st-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.