[NCSG-PC] Singulars/Plurals in New gTLDs and future rounds

[Kathy Kleiman]

To NCSG Policy Committee,

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, 
*/https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AckdQ_GkPaqCkwcfWdnu8eSKK4YliRjYuP2iVBh4Vs/edit?usp=sharing 
/*

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.

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.

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/the same language 
/(not across languages).

*/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, 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19AckdQ_GkPaqCkwcfWdnu8eSKK4YliRjYuP2iVBh4Vs/edit?usp=sharing 
We will be debating this
"compromise proposal" (that comes from ICANN Org) on Tuesday at the next 
Small Team Plus meeting.
/*

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.

Please let me know your thoughts – soon –as the SubTeam meets again on 
Tuesday.

Best regards and tx,

Kathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240522/9647c9fa/attachment-0001.htm>