<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'; font-size: 13px; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">Hi Bruce,<div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">From my understanding - the complainant basically wants the decision from the string similarity panel that found .hotels and .hoteis to be similar to be reviewed again on its merits. Neither the Reconsideration Process or IRP is currently designed to do this. I assume that the applicants for .hotels and .hoteis would want the ability to make submissions and perhaps both would agree that there is not a risk of consumer confusion because the two strings address different markets (English speaking versus Portuguese speaking etc). The applicants could even agree on a process to avoid confusion between the two strings. e.g. some mechanism that would ensure that Hilton.hotels and Hilton.hoteis were managed by the same registrant - but have content in different languages.</blockquote><div><br></div>Absolutely. And if you’re correct then the review would be of the merits of an independent panel decision. Whilst such a review mechanism seems equitable to me I think the key point is that this would need to be built in to a future new gTLD process, presumably arising from policy review and recommendations of the gNSO. Thus, I’m unsure that the real issue in this case can be solved by the work of the CCWG. </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">I think we are all keen to see the processes and appeal mechanisms improved. </blockquote><div><br></div>100% agree. And that is work that I think the CCWG can do. <br><div><br></div><div><div>
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #9443fb; min-height: 16.0px}
</style>
<p class="p1"><br></p>
<p class="p1"><br></p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br></p>
<p class="p2">Chris</p>
</div>
<br><div><div>On 4 Mar 2015, at 17:42 , Bruce Tonkin <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hello Chris,<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> And, as a separate question, in respect to your comments below about mechanisms that go directly to the merits of a decision, what decision would that apply to in this case? <br></blockquote></blockquote><br>From my understanding - the complainant basically wants the decision from the string similarity panel that found .hotels and .hoteis to be similar to be reviewed again on its merits. Neither the Reconsideration Process or IRP is currently designed to do this. I assume that the applicants for .hotels and .hoteis would want the ability to make submissions and perhaps both would agree that there is not a risk of consumer confusion because the two strings address different markets (English speaking versus Portuguese speaking etc). The applicants could even agree on a process to avoid confusion between the two strings. e.g. some mechanism that would ensure that Hilton.hotels and Hilton.hoteis were managed by the same registrant - but have content in different languages.<br><br>I could see how this could be built into a future new gTLD process.<br><br>e.g the String Similarity panel could first identify strings that are potentially confusing and should be in a contention set - e.g. .hotels and .hoteis. Then a separate panel could be convened (perhaps with three panellists) to consider the case on its merits taking submissions from both parties and any other interested members of the global public.<br><br>Another common scenario we have seen is where third parties (ie non-applicants, and not ccTLD managers or gTLD operators) have disputed that two strings should have been found as similar but were not - e.g. .car and .cars. Again such a situation could perhaps be appealed to a larger panel to consider on its merits - I would assume those bringing the dispute would have some standing to raise the issue - e.g. perhaps the Car Industry etc. - on the basis that they could be materially affected by having the two strings.<br><br>I think it is important to remember that this was a major program that was rolled out and there are lots of learnings. Part of being accountable is to address those short-comings in the next release of the process. We have been very careful about changing the rules of the process while it is underway. It is not that dissimilar to planning processes for building approvals etc. When a new area of a city is released for development - the rules may need to be changed to prevent undesirable developments that were not originally foreseen (e.g. buildings too tall, or buildings not fireproof, earthquake proof etc). However the changes need to be made through a community consultation process - rather than the Board imposing new or changed rules along the way.<br><br>I think we are all keen to see the processes and appeal mechanisms improved. I have personally spent many hours reviewing reconsideration requests. As a general rule for every loser in the panel and dispute process - this has resulted in reconsideration as the cost to reconsider versus the cost to apply for a new gTLD was very low. In quite a few of those you could see fairly clearly that the right decision had been made on its merits, and in other cases I could see how a different panel might make a different decision on its merits. Most of the reconsideration requests spend most of their submission arguing the merits of their original case - and few have been able to identify errors in the process. <br><br>Regards,<br>Bruce Tonkin<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></span></body></html>