<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top">Mari Jo:<br/><br/>I was just teasing Andy. ;-)<br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone</td></tr></table> <div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<hr size="1">
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Mari Jo Keukelaar <mj@johnberryhill.com>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
'J. Scott Evans' <jscottevans@yahoo.com>; 'Smith, Bill' <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>; 'Andy Abrams' <abrams@google.com>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span>
</b>
'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@icann.org>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
RE: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Thu, Aug 15, 2013 9:53:00 PM <br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'>Jay Scott:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'>The decision that Mr. Abrams provided has expressly rejected the TM issues raised (as I have suggested), stating:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'>“The Expert is declining the invitation of the Objector to look to American Trademark or UDRP panel decisions to determine confusing similarity under the new gTLD
procedure.”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'>As you, Mr. Smith, and I have agreed, these are not TM disputes and this decision confirms that.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'>I still maintain, we have a policy problem, even if we’re Google.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'>Mari Jo</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;'><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";'> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>J. Scott Evans<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 15, 2013 5:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> Mari Jo Keukelaar; 'Smith, Bill'; 'Andy Abrams'<br><b>Cc:</b> 'bc - GNSO list'<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural</span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond", "serif";color:black;'>Unless you're Google, right?</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"
style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond", "serif";color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:14.0pt;background:white;'><b><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Garamond", "serif";color:#6000BF;'>j. scott evans - head of global brand, domains & copyright - Yahoo! Inc. - 408.349.1385 - <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">jscottevans@yahoo.com</a></span></b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond", "serif";color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Garamond", "serif";color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><div><div><div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style='text-align:center;background:white;'><span style='color:black;'><hr size="1" width="100%" align="center"></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"
style='background:white;'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'> Mari Jo Keukelaar <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:mj@johnberryhill.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">mj@johnberryhill.com</a>><br><b>To:</b> "'Smith, Bill'" <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">bill.smith@paypal-inc.com</a>>; 'Andy Abrams' <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:abrams@google.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">abrams@google.com</a>> <br><b>Cc:</b> <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">jscottevans@yahoo.com</a>; 'bc - GNSO list' <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank"
href="javascript:return">bc-gnso@icann.org</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:51 AM<br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p><div id="yiv1953430318"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Clearly, we all agree that the question of confusing similarity of generic terms is not a trademark matter. I believe that this is supported by what I have been saying.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Given our universal agreement on that score, Objectors in string similarity proceedings would have done well not to cite trademark cases in support of their arguments.
Trademark law does not support a concept of "confusing similarity" as applied to generic words. Between two brands of dog food whose labels say "dog food" or "food for dogs", there is no principle of trademark law which will posit consumer confusion between brands as to what is inside the can.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>So if Objectors have used the DuPont or Sleekcraft factor analyses in their objections, it is no surprise that the arguments are being rejected. Someone hired trademark lawyers to argue a case which, as we all agree, is not a trademark issue.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>The objectors should simply have made the argument that it is self-evident common sense instead of
muddying the waters by reference to trademark law. But there again, the objectors would be asking the panelists to make a policy decision, instead of deciding the case in front of them.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>The problem, as I see it, is that this was not addressed as a policy matter, and we are now expecting the issue to be resolved in a number of one-off decisions which, as I have also said, is no way to formulate policy. We are experiencing a failure on our part as a policy making community, and not a failure of ICANN, the ICC or the panelists.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Indeed the GAC has taken an interest in
this matter, as they have in relation to regionally geographic terms, to the detriment of a prominent Luxembourg TLD applicant. One might assume that Luxembourg did not have sufficient influence on behalf of their native TLD applicant. Perhaps if that applicant was a native US applicant and taxpayer, the US could have been of more assistance to them, but it is not usually the case that the US government will exert itself on behalf of foreign entities.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>If we, not only as a supporting organization, but as a community as a whole, rely on the GAC to resolve our policy issues, they may seek to resolve issues of their own. Then we should not be so quick to jump
all over them for what we perceive as their failure, as we have done, not only to the GAC but to the panels I have been defending in these posts.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Mari Jo</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;'><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",
"sans-serif";color:black;'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";color:black;'> <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> [<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Smith, Bill<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:03 PM<br><b>To:</b> Andy Abrams<br><b>Cc:</b> Mari Jo Keukelaar; <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:jscottevans@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">jscottevans@yahoo.com</a>; bc - GNSO list<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span
style='color:black;'>+1 </span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>I don't see this as a trademark issue. Rather it is an issue of common sense and "doing the right thing". It seems we lose on both counts.</span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Andy Abrams <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:abrams@google.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">abrams@google.com</a>> wrote:</span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"
style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Hi Mari Jo, </span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Thank you for your input - I think we're actually opposite each other in the other pending car/cars case, so it's good to get other perspectives. You raise some very valid points, and I think the ICDR will likely agree with your legal reasoning. But speaking only for myself, my concerns are not based on the application of trademark law at the top level. Rather, as an Internet policy matter, I respectfully believe that allowing generic singular-plural TLDs will be confusing to consumers and bad for businesses that wish to operate websites on one of the two TLDs. Imagine a case where a legitimate business is faced with negative PR, or worse,
scams/phishing, etc. because half of their prospective customers mistakenly go to used.cars instead of used.car. Secondly, simply as a matter of process, if is literally impossible to win a string confusion objection unless ICANN had already placed the strings in contention (thereby making the need for an objection moot), it would have been nice to have that guidance prior to everyone expending money and resources on these proceedings. I guess we'll learn very soon whether the remaining singular-plural decisions follow suit...</span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Best,</span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"
style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Andy</span></p></div></div><div><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;'><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Mari Jo Keukelaar <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:mj@johnberryhill.com" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">mj@johnberryhill.com</a>> wrote:</span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>To be clear: the decisions reached in car/cars and hotel/hotels are actually more in keeping with present interpretation of trademark law than they are dissimilar since plurals of generic words are not "confusingly similar" to other generic words under traditional trademark analysis. We should avoid applying terminology from trademark law out of context, in what
are contests between strings that are not themselves trademarks.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>In these "generic word" disputes, the objecting parties have tended to make arguments based on trademark confusing similarity analysis. In that analysis, though, the trademark has already been determined to be distinctive. So those circumstances involve comparing something to something else which has established distinctiveness. The point is to avoid erosion of what are already distinctive marks. That reasoning just does not apply to generic terms.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>This has been true for years under the
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy. No confusing similarity was found between “Tire Discounter” and “Tire Discounters” despite the difference of only a single letter in Tire Discounters, Inc. v. <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://tirediscounter.com/">TireDiscounter.com</a>, NAF Claim Number: </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>FA0604000679485 (“[b]ecause the mark is merely descriptive, small differences matter”).</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Nor was confusing similarity found between the “The Suit Warehouse” mark and a “SuitWarehouse” domain name because the presence of descriptively common words necessarily restricts the “confusingly similar” analysis very closely to exact identity. The
Men's Wearhouse Inc. v. Brian Wick d/b/a <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://defaultdata.com/">Defaultdata.com</a>, NAF Claim Number: FA0208000117861.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>The results have been no different under the Lanham Act. In a similarity analysis between “ENTREPRENEUR” and “ENTREPRENEUR PR” in two internet domain names, the 9th Circuit declined to find confusing similarity, noting, “[i]n the Internet context, consumers are aware that domain names for different Web sites are quite often similar, because of the need for language economy, and that very small differences matter.” Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F. 3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir., 2002).</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span
style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Additionally, the notion that terms lacking distinctiveness are not subject to "confusing similarity" analysis is also true outside of the US, as the High Court of Australia opined in Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v. Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd, [1978] HCA 11:</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>“There is a price to be paid for the advantages flowing from the possession of an eloquently descriptive trade name. Because it is descriptive it is equally applicable to any business of a like kind, it’s very descriptiveness ensures that it is not distinctive of any particular business.”</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"
style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Of course if you are dealing with established distinctive marks then, yes, "Verizons" will be confusingly similar to "Verizon". But the scope of "confusing similarity" has always been delimited by the distinctiveness of the mark under analysis.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>That a panel, applying ordinary principles of application of the trademark term "confusingly similar" would decline to find such similarity between two generic words is neither surprising nor unusual. If this was an unexpected result, then one might just as well ask how <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://lawyer.com/">lawyer.com</a> and <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://lawyers.com/">lawyers.com</a> manage to exist under different ownership (along with <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://cars.com/car.com">cars.com/car.com</a>, <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://house.com/houses.com">house.com/houses.com</a> <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://dog.com/dogs.com">dog.com/dogs.com</a>, and many other generic words). </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly, under the ICANN rules we are not merely looking at "confusing similarity" but rather, a higher standard of "impermissible" confusing similarity. Comparing these string objections to outcomes in trademark cases is the
proverbial mixing of apples and oranges because the generic strings involved are not, as a threshold matter, even trademarks. The lack of distinctiveness in generic words drives the result that they are not entitled to the broad swath of protection afforded that which would be impermissibly confusing.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>ICANN has done much to protect trademark interests and we can all argue as to whether they have done enough or not. Here, however, we are not even talking about trademarks; we are dealing with two generic terms. The panels did not lose sight of that and I wonder why we sit here bashing them for applying the Policy we all approved and the law over which we’ve little control.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span
style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Mari Jo Keukelaar, M.A./J.D.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Name Administration, Inc.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:#1F497D;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;'><div><p
class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";color:black;'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma", "sans-serif";color:black;'> <a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Andy Abrams<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:09 PM<br><b>To:</b> Steve DelBianco</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'><br><b>Cc:</b> bc - GNSO list</span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><b><span style='color:black;'>Subject:</span></b><span style='color:black;'> Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular
plural</span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>Update: the first singular-plural decisions have come in.</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'> Both singular-plural decisions have gone <i>against </i></span><span style='font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'>a finding of string confusion (our car/cars objection against Donuts, and a Hotel Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l. v. <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://booking.com/">Booking.com</a> B.V. for hotel/hotels). In the car/cars decision, the Panel stated: "It is true that </span><span
style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'>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.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span
style='font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'>Andy</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;'><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Steve DelBianco <<a rel="nofollow" ymailto="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank" href="javascript:return">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:</span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC</span><span
style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings that create a possibility of user confusion.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>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)</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are <u>well understood</u>.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in;'><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>-confusion</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in;'><p class="MsoNormal"
style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>-precedent for the <i>next</i> round</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in;'><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>-ICANN looking pretty ridiculous</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>What’s <u>not understood</u> is how it happened and what we can do about it.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly similar.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>Second response is “Chong” ( Chinese for “Do-over” )</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in;'><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",
"sans-serif";color:black;'>-Do-over on just these 24 pairs </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div style='margin-left:.5in;'><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>- WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.”</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals <u>are</u> confusingly similar)</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>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 <u>should</u> be contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. </span><span
style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN to stumble.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD launch.</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p
class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'> </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", "sans-serif";color:black;'>No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'><br><br clear="all"></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>-- <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#333333;'>Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel<br></span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",
"sans-serif";color:#3333FF;'>G</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:red;'>o</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#FFCC00;'>o</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#3333FF;'>g</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#33CC00;'>l</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:red;'>e</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#333333;'> | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043</span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:black;'><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://www.google.com/voice#phones" title="Go to phones"><span
style='text-decoration:none;'>(650) 669-8752</span></a></span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'><br><br clear="all"></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'>-- <br></span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#333333;'>Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel<br></span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#3333FF;'>G</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:red;'>o</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#FFCC00;'>o</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#3333FF;'>g</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#33CC00;'>l</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:red;'>e</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#333333;'> | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043 </span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial", "sans-serif";color:#333333;'><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="https://www.google.com/voice#phones" title="Go to phones"><span style='text-decoration:none;'>(650) 669-8752</span></a></span><span style='color:black;'></span></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style='background:white;'><span style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style='margin-bottom:12.0pt;background:white;'><span
style='color:black;'> </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>