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

[Emmanuel Vitus]

Hi Kathy,
Thanks for sharing this.
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?
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, but on a
first come first serve basis. Similarly, in French, “cour” (court) and
“cours” (lessons) are homonyms and should be treated as separate entities.

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 french entity applied for .SOLIDARITE (solidarity) as a brand,
a non-commercial organization wanting to use .SOLIDARITES (solidarities) to
promote unity and support in communities would be unfairly blocked.
Similarly, .LIBERTE (freedom) for a brand could block .LIBERTES (freedoms)
for a human rights organization. These examples show how such exclusions
could severely disadvantage non-commercial interests.

We should oppose this. Non-commercial entities often don’t have the
resources for trademarks or the priority given to them (as we discussed in
the recent Trademark Clearinghouse conversation regarding the IDNs EPDP
report). The internet should be for everyone. My 2cent.
Thanks.
Emmanuel Vitus

Le mer. 22 mai 2024 à 15:00, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> a
écrit :

> 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
> <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
> <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
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240522/3bb46c1c/attachment.htm>