[bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural

Wed Aug 14 03:49:39 UTC 2013

Hi Mike,

Attached are copies of the two decisions.  We'll see if the other ICDR
cases follow suit, but in these two cases, it seems that a decision was
made up front to not find string confusion unless the strings were
identical (in which case there is no need to bring an objection) or the
strings were symbolic or visual equivalents (e.g., com v. c0m, which does
not exist at the top level as far as I know, or unicorn v. unicom, which
again, was already placed by ICANN into a contention set).  Then it appears
that the somewhat tortured reasoning was applied retroactively.  If this is
the case, then it will literally be impossible to win a string confusion
case, and I agree that the entire process is rendered completely
superfluous/useless.

Andy

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:07 PM, <icann at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:

> That paraphrasing of the reasoning makes it seem like the experts are
> entirely shirking their duty as independent neutrals, and are making the
> String Similarity Objection completely superfluous/useless.****
>
> ** **
>
> Andy can you send copies of the decisions please?  Or are they posted
> somewhere?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh****
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW****
>
> Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087****
>
> http://rodenbaugh.com****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *J. Scott Evans
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> *To:* abrams at google.com; sdelbianco at netchoice.org
> *Cc:* bc-gnso at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural****
>
> ** **
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *Andy Abrams <abrams at google.com>;
> *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>;
> *Cc: *bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso at icann.org>;
> *Subject: *Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural
> *Sent: *Tue, Aug 13, 2013 11:08:58 PM ****
>
> ** **
>
> Update: the first singular-plural decisions have come in.  Both
> singular-plural decisions have gone *against *a finding of string
> confusion (our car/cars objection against Donuts, and a Hotel
> Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l. v. Booking.com B.V. for hotel/hotels).  In the
> car/cars decision, the Panel stated: "It is true that ****
>
> the ICANN visual similarity standards appear quite narrow, but it is not
> the role [of] this Panel to substitute for ICANN’s expert technical
> findings."  In the hotel/hotels decision, the Panel similarly stated: "I
> find persuasive the degrees of similarity or dissimilarity between the
> strings by use of the String Similarity Assessment Tool, that ICANN did not
> put the applications for .HOTEL and .HOTELS in the same contention set."
>  In other words, the early results suggest that the ICDR may give complete
> deference to ICANN's earlier refusal to essentially find any instances of
> string confusion, no matter how close the strings.****
>
> ** **
>
> Andy****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Steve DelBianco <
> sdelbianco at netchoice.org> wrote:****
>
> Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any
> strings that create a possibility of user confusion.****
>
>  ****
>
> But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include
> 24 pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish)
>     Sport(s) Loan(s)    Web(s)    Game(s)  Hotel(es)****
>
>  ****
>
> Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are *well
> understood*.****
>
> -confusion****
>
> -precedent for the *next* round****
>
> -ICANN looking pretty ridiculous****
>
>  ****
>
> What’s *not understood* is how it happened and what we can do about it.***
> *
>
>  ****
>
> First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly
> similar.****
>
>  ****
>
> Second response is “Chong”  ( Chinese for “Do-over” )****
>
> -Do-over on just these 24 pairs ****
>
> - WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular
> include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.”****
>
>  ****
>
> Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals *are* confusingly similar)**
> **
>
>  ****
>
> String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the
> ICDR rightnow.  If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs *should
> * be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs ****
>
>  ****
>
> Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. ****
>
>  ****
>
> We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for
> ICANN to stumble.****
>
>  ****
>
> We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new
> gTLD launch.****
>
>  ****
>
> No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
> *G**o**o**g**l**e* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043***
> *
>
> (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>****
>
> ** **
>

-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
*Google* | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130813/4094fcf4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Hotel-Hotels.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 360929 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130813/4094fcf4/Hotel-Hotels.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Car-Cars.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 198995 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130813/4094fcf4/Car-Cars.pdf>