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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is where the ICANN bottom-up, consensus driven process is truly tested.
If, in fact, the BC could gain consensus on this with a number of other
constituencies, ALAC and other SOs, the Board would be forced to intervene
on the matter and the possibility of reversing these decisions could be
within grasp.

 

Devoid of that, Marie, the train has left the station and the debacle has
begun.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ron Andruff

RNA Partners

 <http://www.rnapartners.com> www.rnapartners.com 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
stephvg@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 05:28
To: Marie Pattullo
Cc: 'J. Scott Evans'; abrams@xxxxxxxxxx; mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural

 

Perhaps getting the word out might help. Here's hoping, although I have just
kept to the facts and not added any opinions of my own?
http://www.stephanevangelder.com/archives/450-Panels-rule-no-confusion-exist
s-between-singular-and-plural-strings.html

 

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053

Skype: SVANGELDER

www.StephaneVanGelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/> 
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook:
www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant <http://www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant>


LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
<http://fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/> 

 

Le 14 août 2013 à 11:12, "Marie Pattullo" <marie.pattullo@xxxxxx
<mailto:marie.pattullo@xxxxxx> > a écrit :





This is beyond depressing. Is there anything we can actually do, though?

Marie

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> ] On Behalf Of J.
Scott Evans
Sent: mercredi 14 août 2013 6:39
To: abrams@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx> ; mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural

 


I think ICANN should stay out of trademark law.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone

 


  _____  


From: Andy Abrams < <mailto:abrams@xxxxxxxxxx> abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
To: Mike Rodenbaugh < <mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Cc: J. Scott Evans < <mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>;
Steve Delbianco < <mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; bc - GNSO list < <mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural 
Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 3:49:39 AM

 


Hi Mike,

 

Attached are copies of the two decisions.  We'll see if the other ICDR cases
follow suit, but in these two cases, it seems that a decision was made up
front to not find string confusion unless the strings were identical (in
which case there is no need to bring an objection) or the strings were
symbolic or visual equivalents (e.g., com v. c0m, which does not exist at
the top level as far as I know, or unicorn v. unicom, which again, was
already placed by ICANN into a contention set).  Then it appears that the
somewhat tortured reasoning was applied retroactively.  If this is the case,
then it will literally be impossible to win a string confusion case, and I
agree that the entire process is rendered completely superfluous/useless.  

 

Andy

 

 

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:07 PM, < <javascript:return> icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

That paraphrasing of the reasoning makes it seem like the experts are
entirely shirking their duty as independent neutrals, and are making the
String Similarity Objection completely superfluous/useless.

 

Andy can you send copies of the decisions please?  Or are they posted
somewhere?

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From:  <javascript:return> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
<javascript:return> owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:22 PM
To:  <javascript:return> abrams@xxxxxxxxxx;  <javascript:return>
sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:  <javascript:return> bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx


Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural

 


Ridiculous.

Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone

 

  _____  

From: Andy Abrams < <javascript:return> abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
To: Steve DelBianco < <javascript:return> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
Cc: bc - GNSO list < <javascript:return> bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>; 
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC comment on singular plural 
Sent: Tue, Aug 13, 2013 11:08:58 PM

 


Update: the first singular-plural decisions have come in.  Both
singular-plural decisions have gone against a finding of string confusion
(our car/cars objection against Donuts, and a Hotel Top-Level-Domain
S.a.r.l. v. Booking.com <http://Booking.com>  B.V. for hotel/hotels).  In
the car/cars decision, the Panel stated: "It is true that 

the ICANN visual similarity standards appear quite narrow, but it is not the
role [of] this Panel to substitute for ICANN?s expert technical findings."
In the hotel/hotels decision, the Panel similarly stated: "I find persuasive
the degrees of similarity or dissimilarity between the strings by use of the
String Similarity Assessment Tool, that ICANN did not put the applications
for .HOTEL and .HOTELS in the same contention set."  In other words, the
early results suggest that the ICDR may give complete deference to ICANN's
earlier refusal to essentially find any instances of string confusion, no
matter how close the strings.

 

Andy

 

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Steve DelBianco <
<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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





 

-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043

 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones> (650) 669-8752

 





 

-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043

 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones> (650) 669-8752