[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Fwd: Singular / Plural in new gTLDs From: apisan@unam.mx Carlton, Thanks for sending these messages over dictmenes on names that can result in confusion between singular and plural. I share the view of Sadowsky, Madruga-Forti and CHALABY. Ests proposing any action on the part of LACRALO? You can remind your particular history prior consultation and recommendations LACRALO ALAC? Alejandro Pisanty --------------------------- Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Faculty of Chemistry UNAM 3000 University Avenue, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS +525541444475 +525541444475 FROM MEXICO Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Join the LinkedIn group UNAM, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ From: lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of carlton.samuels @ gmail.com [carlton.samuels @ gmail . com] Posted on: Wednesdays, September 4, 2013 14:29 To: lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Fwd: Singular / Plural in new gTLDs [[- Translated text (in -> s) -]] Subject: Fwd: Singular / Plural in new gTLDs From: carlton.samuels @ gmail.com ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 * Strategy, planning, Government, Evaluation and Turnaround * ============================= ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Wednesdays, September 4, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. Subject: Re: [ALAC] Singular / Plural of new gTLDs A: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: ALAC Worklist <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Thanks for bringing this to another, Alan. S to instigate debate community, ALAC includes, besides, we can always just ahead of Alan point out to the regional lists. I can agree that the accepted definition of "confusingly similar" narrows the understanding of how everything works percepcin.Pero handwringing aside, the end result is likely to negatively impact the end user. Asque, quhacemos? Lela Evan intervention closely and quite frankly, can not find fault with his analysis, including his opinion on the likely outcome of any ALAC declaration. Good thing as Evan says, users alternative encontrarn mitigate lightly. Asque not going to throw the rubble. But I support a declaration in the abundance of warranty is "political correctness" rather any expectation of a significant change of course. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 * Strategy, planning, Government, Evaluation and Turnaround * ============================= The sea, September 3, 2013 at 21:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/**groups/board/documents/** minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.h...>. Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, they did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision.

A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on visual similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the decision), adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string.

The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ **applicants/agb/guidebook-full-**04jun12-en.pdf<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>) is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2.

This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD

...

string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of many similar strings.

Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the strings is delegated into the root zone.

The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of similarity.

I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is certainly part of human perception, but it is not limited to that. At issue is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and perception is a far more complex (and less understood) issue.

The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, or had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you trusted, will you later remember if it was really those sites or hilton.hotels or sheraton.hotels?

At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who registers a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both of them to the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the Intellectual Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those using these TLDs would have to make double the investment in domain names (presuming this is even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But the impact on users would be minimal.

But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in sync, we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore I believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". And one that will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet users, the ones that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other case I can recall in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large.

If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board.

Alan

______________________________**_________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+ **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>

[[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/c5121e0c4a.html --]]