Comments for module 3

["Yoav Keren" <yoav@xxxxxxxx>]

The following are my comments for module 3 of the New gTLD Applicant
Guidebook Version 2:

 

Section 3.1.2.1:

In the case that an application is rejected because an existing TLD
Operator successfully asserted string confusion with an applicant - the
rejected string should be  added to a "Rejected TLDs" list. Any of the
strings that are included in the "Rejected TLDs" list should not be
delegated to any party (including the existing TLD operator) in the
future indefinitely.

 

Section 3.3.5:

A hearing may be a very effective way to evaluate the disputes. The case
of a TLD dispute is not a regular domain dispute evaluated under a UDRP
- it is a much more substantial and complex case.  A hearing conducted
on a con-call can be done in a very low cost and be very productive for
all parties. Thus, a hearing should be a part of the dispute resolution
process - and for sure not only in extraordinary cases. 

 

Section 3.4.1: 

A note in this section states that different categories of similarity
including but not limited to visual, aural and meaning will be
considered in objections based on Sting Confusion. 

The meaning of this statement is that in the case of IDNs an incumbent
ASCII registry will be practically entitled to have or block all TLDs
equivalent in meaning or sound to the current ASCII TLD, and in all
languages. 

The first ICANN IDN committee - the Katho IDN committee, concluded
against automatically delegating IDN TLDs equivalent to current gTLDs to
the incumbent registries. 

The GNSO IDN WG that published its conclusions two years ago discussed
this issue and have conclude in a consensus that only visual similarity
will lead to actual user confusion, and recommended to limit similarity
to visual. This was in order to abstain from granting current registries
an unjustifiable right to have equivalent TLDs in all languages, and by
that either prevent the introduction of many IDN gTLDs or concentrate
important IDN gTLDs in the hands of mainly western non-IDN community
based companies. 

These views have been supported by many members of the community and by
ICANN officials in different cases.

If phonetic and meaning similarities are to be considered this would
mean that a current gTLD registry that is based on a GENERIC word, is
granted the right for that word and concept in all languages and all
scripts. This is not only unjustifiable from a cultural and a social
point of view, it is not clear whether this is even legal - having a
party get the rights for the equivalents of a generic word and all its
equivalents in meaning or sound - in all languages and all countries.

Moreover, since hundreds of new ASCII gTLDs are expected to be applied
for, this will mean that many additional gTLD concepts will be blocked
from the IDN community once granted as a new ASCII gTLD.

Thus, the similarity should be limited to 'visual'. 'Aaural and meaning
similarity' should be removed. 

 

Section 3.4.2: 

In continue to my notes to section 3.4.1 it is important to clarify in
the guidebook that existing gTLDs , which are actually based on generic
words for which they have no trademark rights, will not be considered to
be eligible for objecting according to the legal rights objection but
only according to the string confusion objection.

 

Regards,

 

Yoav Keren

CEO

 

Domain The Net Technologies Ltd.

81 Sokolov st.      Tel:  +972-3-7600500

Ramat Hasharon   Fax: +972-3-7600505

Israel 47238

 

 

 







************************************************************************************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.
************************************************************************************