<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Emmanuel,</p>
<p>Tx you! Your response is very valuable. I am incorporating some
of your examples into my writing to the Small Team now. <br>
</p>
<p>Yes, just like our recent TM Clearinghouse discussion! And I am
bringing in an IDN variant argument - thanks to our recent work
together.</p>
<p>Best, Kathy <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/22/2024 2:03 PM, Emmanuel Vitus
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGKde+1cGeH3L6BpB4Rx8A2ZfX9LwQfAG9gRKFDFz1wzO6jhiw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>