<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It is worth noting that this discussion is unfortunately referred to as "singular/plural" as a consequence of our Anglo-centrism; even there the discussion does not take into account Germanic plural forms in English - e.g. child/children or other northern European English adoptions like wife/wives or mouse/mice, where the SWORD algorithm would likely fail to pick up enough in the line of similarity to provide some evidence of a likelihood of confusion, let alone something impermissible. I, for one, have never been confused by whether "wife" and "wives" mean two very different things, and I hope I've managed to clearly convey this concept to my husband.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As for the subject of what is "common sense," we may all have common sense but we do not have a common language. I would be curious to know what "common sense" dictates, for example, when discussing masculine and feminine forms in Romance languages. In Spanish, chico and chica are as different as night and day. Any boy and girl would tell you the same; they all have cooties. If one doesn't know what "chico" and "chica" mean, however, - which is likely true for the majority of internet users - is the answer, as a policy matter, different?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The answer is very different if you speak Spanish, but the "majority language" of internet users is most likely not Spanish, nor is it English. If we are seeking to make policy which is generally applicable to the global internet, does it matter whether "chico" and "chica" mean two different things to one language group, while appearing to be pretty much the same thing for everyone else? If one speaks neither English nor Spanish, "chico" and "chica" probably appear to be more similar than, say, "thing" or "things", which are at least different string lengths.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Quite frankly, to me, all of the Arabic, Hebrew and Chinese IDN TLDs look very much alike since I am unfamiliar with those scripts. Given my ignorance, and applying the principle of “I doubt that I am alone,” shouldn't we also be asking "confusing to whom?"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Unless we are seeking to make a limited policy on "English Nouns With Latinate Plurals" we are going to have to become very cunning linguists indeed, as the next round will find us conjugating verbs and making adverbs out of adjectives while the entire non-English speaking world patiently waits for valuable policy attention to be paid to some issue which might be relevant to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>As with the repeated "what about us?" comments from users of pictographic writing whenever the subject of "single character domains" came up, we should be sensitive to how the "singular/plural issue" is defined, because we are only addressing a subset of English nouns.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Is the goal here to devise a general rule addressing "things which are similar across the board" or are we embarking on an exercise which will eventually lead to a policy compendium addressing the peculiarities of every human language, guided by a "common sense" standard? If the latter, that is going to take considerable time and resources. As for “doing the right thing” I am hard pressed to know how to build a policy or a standard around such an ill defined concept. It reminds me of obscenity being something I know when I see it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mari Jo<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></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>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; jscottevans@yahoo.com; bc - GNSO list<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>+1 <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Andy Abrams <<a href="mailto:abrams@google.com">abrams@google.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Mari Jo, <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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...<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Andy<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Mari Jo Keukelaar <<a href="mailto:mj@johnberryhill.com" target="_blank">mj@johnberryhill.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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 href="http://TireDiscounter.com">TireDiscounter.com</a>, NAF Claim Number: <o:p></o:p></p><p>FA0604000679485 (“[b]ecause the mark is merely descriptive, small differences matter”).<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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 href="http://Defaultdata.com">Defaultdata.com</a>, NAF Claim Number: FA0208000117861.<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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).<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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:<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>“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.”<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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 href="http://lawyer.com/" target="_blank">lawyer.com</a> and <a href="http://lawyers.com/" target="_blank">lawyers.com</a> manage to exist under different ownership (along with <a href="http://cars.com/car.com" target="_blank">cars.com/car.com</a>, <a href="http://house.com/houses.com" target="_blank">house.com/houses.com</a> <a href="http://dog.com/dogs.com" target="_blank">dog.com/dogs.com</a>, and many other generic words). <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Mari Jo Keukelaar, M.A./J.D.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Name Administration, Inc.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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"'> <a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank">owner-bc-gnso@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org" target="_blank">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><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><b>Cc:</b> bc - GNSO list<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>Subject:</b> Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Update: the first singular-plural decisions have come in.<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> Both singular-plural decisions have gone <i>against </i></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>a finding of string confusion (our car/cars objection against Donuts, and a Hotel Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l. v. <a 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><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Andy</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Steve DelBianco <<a href="mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org" target="_blank">sdelbianco@netchoice.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings that create a possibility of user confusion.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are <u>well understood</u>.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-confusion</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-precedent for the <i>next</i> round</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-ICANN looking pretty ridiculous</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>What’s <u>not understood</u> is how it happened and what we can do about it.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly similar.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Second response is “Chong” ( Chinese for “Do-over” )</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>-Do-over on just these 24 pairs </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>- WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.”</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals <u>are</u> confusingly similar)</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN to stumble.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD launch.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>-- <br><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><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><a href="https://www.google.com/voice#phones" target="_blank" title="Go to phones"><span style='text-decoration:none'>(650) 669-8752</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br><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 <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#333333'><a href="https://www.google.com/voice#phones" target="_blank" title="Go to phones"><span style='text-decoration:none'>(650) 669-8752</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>