[council] DRAFT text of letter from Council to Board RE: singular and plural new gTLD applications

[Mason Cole]

I disagree with:

- the idea that we know standards were set aside by the panel
- that singulars and plurals co-existing are necessarily bad
- that the outcomes were in error

So, sorry, I can't support this letter.

In addition, I point to the practical matter that I very much doubt staff would be likely to demand that an evaluation panel divulge its internal processes.  I similarly doubt that would be a good idea, for a lot of reasons.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Zahid Jamil <zahid at dndrc.com> wrote:

> Like the letter.  In addition would it be useful to characterise the outcome an error?
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Zahid Jamil
> Barrister-at-law
> Jamil & Jamil
> Barristers-at-law
> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
> Cell: +923008238230
> Tel: +92 21 35680760 / 35685276 / 35655025
> Fax: +92 21 35655026
> www.jamilandjamil.com
> 
> Notice / Disclaimer
> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 11 Apr 2013, at 11:40, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> Here is my take on the text of a letter from Jonathan to Steve on the subject of singular and plural new gTLD applications as we agreed ought to be written and sent.
>> Cheers,
>> Berard
>> In the course of our meetings this week in Beijing, we have heard and share the concerns expressed about the undesirable consequences of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same word to be delegated in the news gTLD program.  
>> On the basis of policy recommendations of the Council to avoid consumer confusion, this letter asks for clarity on why that policy was, effectively, set aside by the panelist that ICANN enrolled to conduct string similarity tests.
>> Specifically, in the new gTLD Report that was adopted by the GNSO Council was “Recommendation 2 Discussion -- Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain” (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm). The effect of singular and plurals is already embedded in practice. Note that WIPO mediation rules include this: “Words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require.”
>> At a minimum, the Council requests fuller disclosure about the process by which the panelist made their determination and why the Board accepted this variance from existing practice and gTLD policy.  
>> Greater transparency will help the Council evaluate whether the criteria for string similarity were properly conveyed to the panelist, whether the panelist followed that policy advice and how we can address the concerns of the community.
>> 
>>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130411/6749b6b6/attachment.html>