Comments on the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2 (V2), module 3
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 22.214.171.124: 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.