RE: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural

[Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well said, Steve. This underscores all of the key arguments that were put 
forward.  Well done.

Kind regards,

RA



Ron Andruff
www.lifedotsport.com 

-------- Original message --------
From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date:  
To: 'bc - GNSO list' <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural 
 
Here's what we just told the Board at the Public Forum, on behalf of the BC

ICANN’s String Similarity Panel was to place into contention sets any strings 
that create a possibility of user confusion.
 
But in late February ICANN published contention sets that did NOT include 24 
pairs of singular-plural forms of the same string (English and Spanish)     
Sport(s) Loan(s)    Web(s)    Game(s)  Hotel(es)
 
Risks of allowing both singular and plural TLDs for the same word are well 
understood.
-confusion
-precedent for the next round
-ICANN looking pretty ridiculous
 
What’s not understood is how it happened and what we can do about it.
 
First response is to ask if the panelist follow GNSO Policy on confusingly 
similar.
 
Second response is “Chong”  ( Chinese for “Do-over” )
-Do-over on just these 24 pairs
- WIPO Mediation Rules, Article 1 says, “Words used in the singular include the 
plural and vice versa, as the context may require.”
 
Guess we could correct the Guidebook (plurals are confusingly similar)
 
String Confusion Objections on 7 of these pairs are in the hands of the ICDR 
rightnow.  If ICSR does the right thing and finds these pairs should be 
contention sets, The Board can apply this rule to ALL 24 pairs
 
Failing that, there’s Formal Reconsideration. 
 
We all worry about threat from inter-governmental groups just waiting for ICANN 
to stumble.
 
We have enough vulnerability to stumble with so many unknowns in the new gTLD 
launch.
 
No need to add to our vulnerability with this self-inflicted wound