Neuman/Neustar Comments on String Similarity (Reposted from October Discussion)

[Justyna Burr <becky.burr@xxxxxxxxx>]

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 07 October 2013 21:23
To: GNSO Council (council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Subject: [council] Personal Thoughts on String Similarity

 

All,

 

In preparation for our Council call this week where the topic of String
Similarity will be discussed, I wanted to provide these comments which are
my own and not necessarily the views of the Registries Stakeholder Group.

 

Like many in the ICANN community, I have expressed some frustration about
inconsistent application of ICANN's standard for new gTLD objections based
on claims that an applied for string is "confusingly similar" to another
proposed gTLD or to an existing TLD.  This led me to ask Christine Willett
during the last ICANN Webinar Update how the ICANN staff intended to proceed
in such cases.

 

I want to be clear, however, that "consistent" application of the
confusingly similar standard DOES NOT require the "same" outcome for all
applications for the exact match for a particular string.   If that were the
case, then the dispute resolution panels would be required to evaluate the
likelihood of confusion without regard to each applicant's unique plan for a
gTLD string and their arguments articulating why such plans would not cause
confusion.  That would be a huge mistake.  In fact, the proposed use of a
new gTLD is highly relevant to the question of whether or not there is a
likelihood of confusion.  Indeed, it is to be expected that expert panels
might reasonably conclude, as has apparently happened, that the string
".cam" is confusingly similar to ".com" in one case but not in another.  As
lawyers for United TLD argued in that case (in a publicly accessible
letter), "Consolidation has the potential to prejudice the Applicants if all
Applicants' arguments are evaluated collectively, without regard to each
Applicant's unique plan for the .cam gTLD and their arguments why such plans
would not cause confusion."  

 

In fact, the complained-of inconsistency in other cases appears to arise
from the panel's failure to actually take account of the context in which a
proposed gTLD would operate.  Examples include translation cases where the
different markets were likely not considered.

 

My point is that the community and applicant pool each have legitimate
interests in the consistent application of ICANN's standard for determining
whether or not two strings "confusingly similar."  Those interests do not,
however, justify further delay or re-opening cases where context supports a
finding of confusing similarity in one case but not another.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz