Comments on the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2 (V2), module 3

["Shahram Soboutipour" <ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear sirs

 

Here are my comments on the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2 (V2),
module 3:

 

Item 3.1.1:

The similarity objection is very open now. Imagine when IDNs come in, we may
have several TLDs in several languages, then what happens is that current
registries has the power of blocking many new applied TLDs just because of
having similarity in meaning. I think this is just a support of current
western registries.

In other hand, in the next round the case would be much more complicated,
since the registries are increased to 400-500. So what is expected is that
very few TLDs have the chance to succeed (actually the TLD round will stop
in this stage)

 

Item 3.1.2.1:

I believe if an existing TLD operator successfully asserts string confusion
and the application is rejected, the rejected string should not be given to
anyone else, including the existing TLD operator who objected and won.

 

Item 3.3.4:

For IDNs the expert panel must consist of at least one expert from that
language or territory which must be fluent in that language.

 

Item 3.3.5:

Cost can also be decreased by using phone conferences.

 

Item 3.4.1:

I have been a member of GNSO IDN WG. What I remember from the sessions 2
years ago is that we agreed on limiting the similarity of TLDs to just
VISUAL similarity. This was because of the character confusions that exists
in the Unicode tables for some characters. In my language (Farsi / Persian)
such confusions are common for some characters. Also we have confusions with
Arabic characters, so the logic of that decision was decreasing the
possibility of confusion between applications provided from languages of
same root (such as Persian and Arabic) or inside one language confusions.

But now we see that ICANN has ignored all decisions made in IDN WG and added
other types of similarity.

It is a question for me that how could two TLDs from different languages
conflict with each other only in sound while they are different even in
characters or in meanings?

 

Item 3.4.2:

In Legal Rights Objection it is described that if the applied-for gTLD is
identical or similar, visually, in sound and meaning to objector's EXISTING
MARK, it is grounds for objection. 

The Guidebook needs to be very specific and state that if a party is already
objecting on its rights being infringed because of string confusion with an
existing TLD that it operates, then it is NOT eligible to view that existing
gTLD as a "EXISTING MARK" and pursue the Legal Rights Objection. So the
guidebook needs to state explicitly that all existing TLD string operators
can ONLY object via the String confusion mechanism and not the Legal Rights
objection mechanism. In effect existing TLDs for ICANN objection purposes
are no longer "EXISTING MARKS", assuming they are both in some cases.

 

Regards,

 

Shahram Soboutipour

Karmania Technology Inc.

President and CEO

 

t/f: +98 341 2237007 | m: +98 913 1416626

e: ceo@xxxxxxxxxxx| w: www.karmania.ir

 

  _____  

DISCLAIMER:
This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the
intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL AND
PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or copying or
distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in this message is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
the sender by email and delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard
is appreciated.