ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Nexus comment

  • To: <gtld-string@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Nexus comment
  • From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:53:38 -0500

During the GNSO PDP that led to Implementation Guideline f(ii), gTLD
examples used for its intent were .BANK, .LIBRARY, and later .CHEROKEE and
.MAORI.  In other words, each an example of a dictionary term.  Inherently,
the purpose of IG f(ii) was in the case of resolving string contention
where, predictably, the most likely instance would reside with dictionary
terms (such as the examples cited).


So, let's look at the implementation of nexus "between proposed string and
community".  The strongest weight is being provided to terms that are trade
names or well known abbreviations of trade names.  And even more
specifically, trade names of "community institutions".  In other words,
non-dictionary terms.  


First, the assumption being made for implementation is that the trade name
of a community institution, as a gTLD string, offers the strongest
connection "between proposed string and community".  I question this
assumption.  I do agree that this method of implementing nexus lends itself
to objectivity goals.  I would also agree that the trade name of a community
institution offers the strongest connection of the proposed gTLD string to
that specific institution.  But I question the assumption - and
corresponding implementation - that the trade name of a community
institution offers the strongest connection "between a proposed string and


Second, applying the most weight for nexus to trade names infers an
assumption that the concern for implementation is the predictability of
string contention for non-dictionary terms vs. dictionary terms.  I think
the reverse is true and that the intent of IG f(ii) - and the reason for its
existence - is because the reverse is true.


In summary, I agree with the implementation of nexus criteria to determine
whether an applicant is community-based.  But practically speaking, trade
names are not dictionary terms and the inherent purpose of IG f(ii) was to
award priority to community-based applicants in the case of contention for
dictionary terms.  Put another way, I don't think there is much worry by
community institutions for string contention of their trade name - so much
so that I am not convinced community institutions will feel the need to even
file as community-based for their trade name.  So why is this where the most
weight is being attributed to implement nexus?  That's my question in review
of the draft and point system to achieve nexus.  As a remedy, I would take
what is now the second highest weight to achieve nexus and make it the
highest weight.


As a related comment, I would like to add that the draft AGB is still unsure
what to do in the case more than one applicant meets the criteria for
community-based.  In this scenario, I believe ICANN has administered all
that they can fairly and objectively for the applicants with the final
resolution to be left to an auction.


Thank you!


Ray Fassett


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy