<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><span id="m_-45463125347352252gmail-docs-internal-guid-d6caa795-7fff-17b9-d087-5ad7613e8499"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><font face="trebuchet ms, sans-serif">Hi Kathy,<br>Thanks for sharing this.<br>I still don’t get why the Board worries that allowing singular and plural forms of gTLDs will make them delve too much into “content.” Were there any practical examples of arguments given to support this concern?<br>I completely agree that delegations must be in the same language to avoid confusion. For example, in Spanish, “casa” (house) and “casas” (houses) shouldn’t both be delegated as gTLDs since they are simply singular and plural forms of the same word. However, I agree that if they are just homonyms, they should be allowed to be delegated. For instance, in English, “bank” (financial institution) and “bank” (side of a river) are homonyms and could be delegated as they represent different meanings<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">, but on a first come first serve basis</span>. Similarly, in French, “cour” (court) and “cours” (lessons) are homonyms and should be treated as separate entities.<br><br>I’m strongly against the proposal to exclude future trademarked gTLDs from these rules. As you mentioned, there’s no legal precedent for such a rule, and it clearly doesn’t favor non-commercial stakeholders. For instance, if a commercial <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">french </span>entity applied for .SOLIDARITE <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">(solidarity) </span>as a brand, a non-commercial organization wanting to use .SOLIDARITES<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> (solidarities)</span> to promote unity and support in communities would be unfairly blocked. Similarly, .LIBERTE <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">(freedom) </span>for a brand could block .LIBERTES<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> (freedoms) </span> for a human rights organization. These examples show how such exclusions could severely disadvantage non-commercial interests.<br><br>We should oppose this. Non-commercial entities often don’t have the resources for trademarks or the priority given to them<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> (</span>as we discussed in the recent Trademark Clearinghouse conversation regarding the IDNs EPDP report<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">)</span>. The internet should be for everyone.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> My 2cent. </span><br><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Thanks. </span> </font><br></p></span><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Emmanuel Vitus </span><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le mer. 22 mai 2024 à 15:00, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To NCSG Policy Committee,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been asked to circulate the
Singular/Plurals ideas of
the SubPro Small Team Plus created by Council to reconcile
recommendations of
the SubPro Working Group rejected by the ICANN Board, <b><i><a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AckdQ_GkPaqCkwcfWdnu8eSKK4YliRjYuP2iVBh4Vs/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AckdQ_GkPaqCkwcfWdnu8eSKK4YliRjYuP2iVBh4Vs/edit?usp=sharing</a>
</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem is singular and plural gTLDs. In
the First Round
of New gTLDs, in 2012, singulars and plurals went forward. The
idea was that
one registry might use .SPRING for domain names about seasons and
another might
use .SPRINGS for metal coils. A wide use of words has always been
NCSG’s position:
that there are many meanings for words and we should allow them to
flourish in
domain names and gTLDs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is what the SubPro Working Group
recommended, but the ICANN
Board expressed concerns and said no. The Board worries that they
will be forced
to inquire too deeply into the “content” of a future gTLD – how it
will be used
– rather than analyzing what the gTLD looks like only. As you
know, ICANN cannot
regulate “content” under its new Bylaws.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The SubPro Small Team Plus returned to the
Board and offered
to put into the same contention set future plural such as .example
and
.examples – these are likely “confusingly similar” to Internet
users and only
one should be delegated. And singular/plurals must be in<i> the same language </i>(not across languages). </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Please look at the Board’s current proposal, from
the perspective of the languages we speak, and the
similarities and differences
of singulars and plurals, <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AckdQ_GkPaqCkwcfWdnu8eSKK4YliRjYuP2iVBh4Vs/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AckdQ_GkPaqCkwcfWdnu8eSKK4YliRjYuP2iVBh4Vs/edit?usp=sharing</a>
We will be debating this <br>
"compromise proposal" (that comes from ICANN Org) on Tuesday
at the next Small Team Plus meeting. <br>
</i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, Jeff Neuman just added language
to remove future trademarked gTLDs (.BRANDS) from these rules
completely. I am concerned as that would elevate commercial gTLD
uses over noncommercial gTLD uses. I can envision a Liberty Gas
Station (a chain in the US) that wants .LIBERTY and a
noncommercial group that wants .LIBERTIES to promote rights in
their countries and communities, and a few similar ones. The
noncommercial .LIBERTIES is blocked and the commercial .LIBERTY
gas station goes forward. I know of no legal precedent for such a
rule. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please let me know your thoughts – soon –as the
SubTeam
meets again on Tuesday. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards and tx, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kathy</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</div>