[SubPro-ODP] Clarifying Question on last Question in Set #3

[Karen Lentz]

Hello Jeff,

Thank you for noting and, to elaborate and try to clarify on the scenario here:

It’s a similar question to and follows from the previous question – only there may be impact for the second level when it comes to their registration policies.  For example, if we have hand and hands, and they are allowed because the applicants are considering those strings as different uses because of different meanings in different languages – part of their RVC might be limiting or allowing registrations according to IDN tables for the relevant scripts/languages that will be in use for the registry.  If that is the case, would an RVC be a mechanism to memorialize that commitment?  And if so, would that be needed from all applicants in the event that a later round produced an application for a TLD found to be similar but intended to be used differently – or, as it seems from some of the other responses – would it only be up to the later applicant to demonstrate how the intended use is different and propose the appropriate RVC?

Best regards,
Karen


From: SubPro-ODP <subpro-odp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:07 AM
To: SubPro ODP Mailman List <subpro-odp at icann.org>
Subject: [SubPro-ODP] Clarifying Question on last Question in Set #3

Dear ICANN ODP Team,

In Question set #3, the ICANN ODP Team asks a number of questions about the String Similarity Review recommendations contained within the SubPro Final Report.  The final question is actually a presentation of several hypothetical situations that could occur and in addition to asking what would happen in those scenarios, it asks the following:

“Question: In light of this, does the Council agree that this will likely require each application to indicate which languages/scripts they intend to use via an RVC and that those languages must always be offered for the life of the TLD? And to allow for future intended use determination, these RVCs will have to be submitted by all strings not just those in contention sets so that applications in future rounds can be assessed against existing RVCs.”

I have read this question several times and am still not clear about the relationship between languages/scripts proposed to be used at the second level, and the top-level string similarity review.  The SubPro final report states that with respect to plurals and singulars, they are only deemed confusingly similar to each other at the top level if strings are plurals/singulars of each other in the same language.  The exception is if the strings have different meaning such that although one technically is the plural or singular of the other, the applicant(s) are using it for different purposes and commit to doing so.  [This is my paraphrasing so forgive my wording].

But this is all at the top level in the same language.  Can you please clarify the scenario you are envisaging where registrations at the second level in different scripts/languages are impacted?

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Jeff

[cid:image001.png at 01D85F88.979C1810]

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com [jjnsolutions.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jjnsolutions.com__;!!PtGJab4!vR-I_TjiUSshKjaQFojSJ1YKeOQFZ0L_eGlGPOHGnie8jqZBT3f7AS7lX9hMmwQF0AxAwPE$>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-odp/attachments/20220504/cbe7f844/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 67521 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/subpro-odp/attachments/20220504/cbe7f844/image001-0001.png>