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

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Emmanuel,

Tx you! Your response is very valuable. I am incorporating some of your 
examples into my writing to the Small Team now.

Yes, just like our recent TM Clearinghouse discussion!  And I am 
bringing in an IDN variant argument - thanks to our recent work together.

Best, Kathy

On 5/22/2024 2:03 PM, Emmanuel Vitus wrote:
>
> 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
>     /*
>
>     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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/c12303e3/attachment-0001.htm>