[gtld-council] Definition of String Contention

["Ray Fassett" <rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All:

 

I was able to listen in remotely to the discussion taking place with regards
to the GNSO new gTLD committee
- review of staff implementation input.

 

I would like to offer a suggestion as this pertained to the discussion of
string contention in an efficient market and how this then dove tailed into
the complication of establishing various expert panels.  I believe this
particular discussion took place around section 7.8 of the staff report.  My
recollection is that the committee took some strides to define string
contention to be a situation where a proposed new gTLD is typographically or
phonetically similar to another proposed or existing gTLD.  To take the
example used this morning of .football, it is possible that an applicant can
apply for .football without string contention but where string opposition
may surface during the process window.  This is to say that the idea of
string contention, as defined by the committee, is really very efficient in
scope.  There can only be string contention if two or more applicants file
for the same string or the applicant's string is typographically or
phonetically confusing to an existing string.  With this scope, likelihood
can exist that a panel of experts can be assembled for the issue string
contention including, I believe, with regards to IDN.

 

This is different than an instant efficient market with regards to string
opposition, which lends itself to far more subjective interpretation.  I
think it is a difficult burden for the committee to try to provide
recommendations that script out a perfect scenario (i.e. an efficient
market) for string opposition, including pre-determining the qualifications
of a standing panel for exactly what this means.  Further, to try to do so,
seems to cut against the motivations by the committee to define string
contention.  My thoughts are that the concept of developing an efficient
market to allow for string opposition is with 1) active promotion that a new
gTLD round is taking place and 2) with built in mechanisms for any party to
directly voice their opposition on whatever grounds they might have during
the application process window (but likely not for reasons of "contention"
because this is handled separately).  I do not believe that an "instant"
efficient market for string opposition can be a realistic objective of the
committee recommendations while at the same time understanding certain
safeguards are being incorporated that include moral and public policy
issues, in theory for reasons to protect the majority where such education
and awareness may not have reached.

 

Part of my point is that I feel the committee was careful to define "string
contention" and when discussing aspects of the recommendations, to be
careful now to not inter mingle "contention" with the concept of
"opposition".

 

Thanks for considering my input, and I thought the discussion was very
productive today.

 

Ray Fassett