[NCSG-PC] Singular/Plurals - Email [2] in preparation for our NCSG PC meeting tomorrow

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi All,

In follow-up to my email earlier today, here is the near-final text of 
the Supplemental Recommendation, as approved by the Subpro Small Team 
Plus today (and headed back to you in Council soon). Staff is making 
final tweaks based on the conversation today, and this is 99.99% of the 
final text.  For our discussion tomorrow! Best, Kathy

---------------------

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Recommendations

Background

On 10 September 2023, the ICANN Board resolved (see scorecard) to not 
adopt select

recommendations from amongst five topics contained in the New gTLD 
Subsequent Procedures

Final Report. On 26 October 2023, the ICANN Board resolved (see 
scorecard) to not adopt

recommendations related to one additional topic. As indicated in the 
ICANN Bylaws, the

Council, “shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and 
communicate that conclusion

(the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an 
explanation for the

then-current recommendation.”

The GNSO Council convened the Small Team Plus in April 2024 to draft 
Supplemental Recommendation(s) to address the Board’s concerns with the 
non-adopted New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP recommendation 
on Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations.See the _motion 
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2024-04-18>_.In 
particular, “[t[he Board remains concerned, as previously voiced as part 
of its comment on the Draft Final Report, over the wording in section 
(a) and (c) of this Recommendation as they stipulate ‘intended use’ of a 
gTLD, which implies that ICANN will have to enforce the ‘intended use’ 
post delegation, which could be challenged as acting outside its mission.”

Herein contained are the GNSO Council’s conclusions related to 
recommendations not adopted

by the ICANN Board.

Supplemental Recommendations

Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations

Supplemental Recommendation

Supplemental Recommendation 24.3: The GNSO Council recommends 
prohibiting the delegation of singulars and plurals of the same word in 
the same language in order to reduce the risk of end user confusion.

This prohibition applies in two distinct situations: 1) where an 
applied-for gTLD string is a singular or plural of an existing gTLD or 
those Blocked Names on Annex A[1] <#_msocom_1>and 2) where an 
applied-for gTLD[2] <#_msocom_2>string is a singular or plural of 
another applied-for gTLD string:

1)If ICANN org is informed[3] <#_msocom_3>, and verifies by reference to 
a dictionary[4] <#_msocom_4>, that an application for a string that is 
the singular or plural version of the same word in the same language 
during the same application window, of an existing gTLD or Blocked 
Name^^[1] <#_ftn1>has been submitted, such application will not be 
permitted to proceed. For the avoidance of doubt, this does not include 
names other than those on the list in Annex A.[5] <#_msocom_5>[6] 
<#_msocom_6>[7] <#_msocom_7>[8] <#_msocom_8>ICANN org will treat all 
other applications for the same strings in the same manner .

2)If ICANN org is informed, and verifies by reference to a dictionary, 
that there is an application for the singular version of a word and an 
application for a plural version of the same word in the same language 
during the same application window, the relevant applications will be 
placed in a contention set.ICANN org will treat all other applications 
for the same string[9] <#_msocom_9>s[10] <#_msocom_10>in the same manner.

*Explanation for Recommendation*

The GNSO Council sought to address the concerns of the ICANN Board by 
making the following amendments to the original recommendation.

To assist in addressing the Board’s concerns, ICANN org developed a 
proposed text which provided a reporting mechanism for singulars and 
plurals of the same word in the same language but did not contain any 
exceptions. The Small Team Plus began with deliberation on this proposal 
and spent considerable time discussing various exception details, such 
as exceptions for trademark owners using Specification 13 for .brands 
and exceptions for non-profit and civil society organizations using 
registry voluntary commitments. After extensive deliberations, including 
suggesting that an evaluation for non-confusion could include an 
“intended registrant” or "eligible registrant” instead of the 
problematic “intended use”, the Small Team Plus agreed that it could not 
agree on the details of any exceptions process and instead chose to 
recommend to the GNSO Council that there should be no exceptions.

The GNSO Council recommends to prohibit new delegations of gTLDs 
consisting of singulars and plurals of the same word in the same 
language without exceptions[11] <#_msocom_11>. Nothing in this 
Supplemental Recommendation is meant to have any effects upon the rights 
of pre-existing gTLDs. The Council notes that non-adoption by the Board 
of this recommendation risks potentially reverting the policy to 2012 
practice where singulars and plurals are allowed to coexist and 
applicants may use the string confusion[12] <#_msocom_12>objection 
process if concerned about consumer confusion[13] <#_msocom_13>.**

*Minority Statement: *

*Two members *have significant reservations regarding the majority 
Supplemental Recommendation. The Recommendation is overly broad. Such a 
broad approach is not consistent with the principles of (1) Applicant 
Freedom of Expression as confirmed by the Sub Pro Final Report, (2) 
promotion of competition, or with (3)Recommendation 24.3 from Sub Pro 
which was intended to moderate the effect of the proposed prohibition. 
The Small Team Plus worked hard to develop a Supplemental Recommendation 
based on verification of objective criteria substantiating restricted 
registrant eligibility clearly enforceable by ICANN such as meeting Spec 
12 or Spec 13 commitments or licensing or other professional 
qualifications. These restrictions were viewed as too narrow by some and 
perhaps too broad by others. Full consensus was not achieved. 
Accordingly, the minority favors non-adoption of the total ban on 
singulars and plurals.

NCSG Plurality Statement:[14] <#_msocom_14>A different minority [15] 
<#_msocom_15>had openness to exceptions, but only if they could be fair 
and balanced. The proponents of a .BRAND exception, however, insisted 
that no noncommercial exception could be properly bounded to avoid abuse 
while also maintaining that the requirements for .BRANDS would not pose 
risks of abuse. This was unbalanced given the minimal restrictions on 
.BRANDS in practice. Thus, the majority Supplemental Recommendation is 
superior to special treatment for .BRANDS, although balanced exceptions 
would have been preferable.


Annex A: [16] <#_msocom_16>LIMITED BLOCKED NAMES LIST

Top-Level BlockedNames List

AFRINICIANA-SERVERSNRO

ALACICANNRFC-EDITOR

APNICIESGRIPE

ARINIETFROOT-SERVERS

ASOINTERNICRSSAC

CCNSOINVALIDSSAC

EXAMPLE*IRTFTEST*

GACISTFTLD

GNSOLACNICWHOIS

GTLD-SERVERSLOCALWWW

IABLOCALHOST

IANANIC

*Note that in addition to the above strings, ICANN will reserve 
translations of the terms “test” and “example” in multiple languages. 
The remainder of the strings are reserved only in the form included above.

In addition, the following names should also be included:

●Per SubPro Affirmation 21.3: ONION

●Per SubPro Recommendation 21.4: PTI

●Per SAC113: INTERNAL


------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^[1] <#_ftnref1>A “Blocked Name” (formerly the “Top-Level Reserved 
Names List”) as defined in the then-current Applicant Guidebook.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 9/3/2024 11:49 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> To our NCSG Councilors,
>
> This has been a very difficult summer.  We fought for a fair and 
> balanced creation of exceptions for Singulars and Plurals, and yet 
> almost no one wanted to listen. The only exception everyone on the 
> team wanted to create was one for Brands, and the more Cara and later 
> Rebecca (as our Subject Matter alternates and experts) thought about 
> it, the more dangerous it became.
>
> In a few minutes, I'll be able to share the final text of the proposed 
> SubPro Recommendation on Singulars/Plurals. It's still being finalized 
> by Staff based on last wording changes in our final meeting that ended 
> half an hour ago.
>
> *But before then, I want to share with you the memo that Professor 
> Rebecca Tushnet (a world expert on international trademark laws and 
> free speech and expression laws and protections), about our utter 
> frustration that few in the Small Team cared about the real and 
> genuine problems of the proposed .BRAND Exceptions.  Almost no one 
> cared about the far higher integrity and credibility of Noncommercial 
> and Non-Profit organizations in their applications for new gTLDs. *
>
> History: We (NCSG and NCUC before NCSG existed) fought this battle at 
> second level and now at the top level.  Trademark owners /do not have 
> a better right to words than we do -- /in fact under traditional 
> trademark laws and balances, noncommercial uses of organization and 
> individuals are protection, for example, as our names (Wendy & 
> McDonald), for descriptions of our activities like baseball, art, and 
> poetry - and for our criticisms, concerns, and arguments.  Words like 
> liberty and freedom are also gas stations and blood glucose monitors!
>
> In preparation for our meeting tomorrow, I share our final memo to the 
> Small Team after weeks of seeking support for an equal and equivalent 
> exception for noncommercial and non-profit organizations.  We have to 
> share that we felt very beaten up in this process - it was not fun.  A 
> lot of power was given in this experimental Small Team and many people 
> served as active and unwavering advocates for their clients.
>
> That said, Paul McGrady did a good and fair job as Chair. He worked 
> very hard to make sure all voices were heard, including ours.
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Hi All [SubPro Small Team Plus],
>
> Please put away the knives and sheath the spears…
>
> We are coming in to support Kurt’s concerns and proposals: /“I think 
> it is much better to take a conservative approach for this round and 
> seek to avoid user confusion to the extent possible and eliminate 
> exceptions at this point. I also believe we should deliver to ICANN an 
> implementable policy that will avoid vagueness and litigation, i.e., 
> creating policy that facilitates the implementation of a smooth 
> running process. This is incredibly important for the reputation of 
> the multi-stakeholder model.”Kurt, 4 Aug./
>
> Efficiency, clarity, fairness. It’s not a perfect solution to consumer 
> confusion since we know that .MOBIL can coexist and with .MOBILE and 
> .MOBI and .NEW and .NEWS, but it is clear and understandable to 
> everyone coming into the process.Yes, it favors incumbents, but it 
> serves the overall goals of the SubPro Working Group: /“Specifically, 
> the Working Group recommends prohibiting plurals and singulars of the 
> same word within the same language/script in order to reduce the risk 
> of consumer confusion.”/
>
> In the current exceptions language, now added to our many Strawmen, we 
> have strayed from any anchor point to the SubPro Small Team 
> recommendation language.We are no longer evaluating new gTLDs against 
> each other for meaning, or for confusion. We seem to have left these 
> ideas completely behind. [1]
>
> /We cannot support rules that allow a trademark, from anywhere in the 
> world, registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse and used for a .BRAND 
> application, to get a complete “pass” from all evaluation and 
> examination of meaning – that is a clear formula for consumer confusion./
>
> Further, the current language and many prior Strawmen are premised on 
> assumptions that are not fair or valid, including that the rest of the 
> world will use “generic words” for their new gTLDs. But that is not 
> the case. Organizations, companies and individuals around the world 
> will apply for the gTLD strings that are the most meaningful to them – 
> some will be fanciful, some will be arbitrary as applied to their 
> activities, some will be descriptive, and some will be generic. There 
> is no reason that trademarks should take priority over everyone else’s 
> applications for new gTLD strings.
>
> /If we don’t evaluate the meaning of all gTLD strings identified in as 
> Singulars or Plurals of other applications or existing gTLDs in a 
> clear and transparent way, and if we don’t have fair and balanced 
> exceptions that equally support legitimate noncommercial and 
> commercial use,/ /then we must revert to Kurt’s language./ As long as 
> the gTLDs are the same word, in the same language, in some legitimate 
> dictionary, we should put them into a contention set. This is a clear 
> and efficient way to avoid the risk of consumer confusion over the gTLDs.
>
> We are happy to explain further.
>
> _There is nothing magical about trademarks._
>
> We oppose the exceptions language for five reasons and can certainly 
> provide more:
>
> 1)It assumes a high standard of review for trademarks, and that is not 
> true internationally. Trademarks in many countries are granted without 
> “use” requirements. The Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) must accept 
> marks from every country, and although it requires a showing of use, 
> the showing is de minimis. As long as the product or service appears 
> somewhere on the website, even in a footer, the .BRAND requirements 
> are satisfied.
>
> The Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group found a pattern of 
> registration in the Trademark Clearinghouse that shows trademark 
> owners in Switzerland actively using their TMCH registrations to “game 
> the system” to gain early access to valuable domain names in Sunrise. 
> The stakes for gaming in the TMCH will be much higher when someone can 
> get an automatic pass out of a contention set for a Singular/Plural gTLD.
>
> 2)It assumes that the trademark owners have better rights to new gTLDs 
> than other applicants, and that is certainly not the case. *Every 
> Applicant for a New gTLD, and especially those coming from the Global 
> South, tribes and indigenous peoples, non-profits and civil society – 
> groups that ICANN will go to great lengths to recruit to the New gTLD 
> program and to help through the application process – should have the 
> same right and opportunity to a new gTLD string.*Just because there is 
> a trademark for the word “rotary” does not mean that the .BRAND owner 
> should prevail in a grouping of applications for .rotary and .rotaries 
> by Rotary International and a group posting on the research of traffic 
> circles (.rotaries) around the world. *New gTLDs are important and 
> central to each and every applicant.*
>
> 3)It does not protect Sensitive Strings, and we need to. The GAC has 
> told us that certain gTLDs are important to *Consumer Protection and 
> Regulated Markets, *as /“These strings are likely to invoke a level of 
> implied trust from consumers, and carry higher levels of risk 
> associated with consumer harm.”/
>
> *We respect this GAC Consensus Advice and urge a wall be built around 
> the Sensitive String they identified for us.No Singular/Plurals of 
> these words should be allowed: *
>
> /Children: .kid, .kids, .kinder, .game, .games, .juegos, .play, 
> .school, .schule, .toys; Environmental: .earth, .eco, .green, .bio, 
> .organic; Health and Fitness: .care, .diet, .fit, .fitness, .health, 
> .healthcare, .heart, .hiv, .hospital,, .med, .medical, .organic, 
> .pharmacy, .rehab, .surgery, .clinic, .healthy (IDN Chinese 
> equivalent), .dental, .dentist .doctor, .dds, .physio; 
> Financial:capital, . cash, .cashbackbonus, .broker, .brokers, .claims, 
> .exchange, .finance, .financial, .fianancialaid, .forex, .fund, 
> .investments, .lease, .loan, .loans, .market, . markets, .money, .pay, 
> .payu, .retirement, .save, .trading, .autoinsurance, .bank, .banque, 
> .carinsurance, .credit, .creditcard, .creditunion,.insurance, .insure, 
> ira, .lifeinsurance, .mortgage, .mutualfunds, .mutuelle, .netbank, 
> .reit, .tax, .travelersinsurance, .vermogensberater, 
> .vermogensberatung and .vesicherung. Gambling: .bet, .bingo, .lotto, 
> .poker, and .spreadbetting, .casino; Charity: .care, .gives, .giving, 
> .charity; Education: degree, .mba, .university; Intellectual 
> Property.audio, .book (and IDN equivalent), .broadway, .film, .game, 
> .games, .juegos, .movie, .music, .software, .song, .tunes, .fashion 
> (and IDN equivalent), .video, .app, .art, .author, .band, .beats, 
> .cloud (and IDN equivalent), .data, .design, .digital, .download, 
> .entertainment, .fan, .fans, .free, .gratis, .discount, .sale, 
> .hiphop, .media, .news, .online, .pictures, .radio, .rip, .show, 
> .theater, .theatre, .tour, .tours, .tvs, .video, .zip;Professional 
> Services: .abogado, .accountant, .accountants, .architect, 
> .associates, .attorney, .broker, .brokers, .cpa, .doctor, .dentist, 
> .dds, .engineer, .lawyer, .legal, .realtor, .realty, .vet; Corporate 
> Identifiers: .corp, .gmbh, .inc, .limited, .llc, .llp, .ltda, .ltd, 
> .sarl, .srl, .sal; Generic Geographic Terms: .town, .city, .capital; 
> .reise, .reisen; .weather; .engineering; .law; Inherently Governmental 
> Functions .army, .navy, .airforce.Beijing Communique, ICANN46/
>
> *Currently there is no protection for these strings and 
> plural/singular gTLDs will be allowed, including .BRAND exceptions – 
> and lead to consumer confusion. *
>
> 4) It assumes that all .BRAND Registries will monitor their licensees 
> closely, and that is not the case. There is no assurance that all 
> .BRAND Registry Operators will closely oversee their affiliates and 
> trademark licensees once they register domain names. The only 
> requirement is that a user licensed by the .BRAND must also possess a 
> trademark license, which can be incorporated into the .BRAND 
> agreement. But, while trademark licenses in the US and some other 
> countries require quality control, this type of oversight is not 
> required in many parts of the world and not needed to maintain a 
> trademark:
>
> ·The majority of countries (roughly 2/3) don’t require quality control 
> in licenses. (Mary M. Squyres and Nanette Norton, Trademark Practice 
> Throughout the World | September 2023 Update Appendix 23(G)).
>
> ·“European trademark law does not require the licensor to exercise 
> control over the use of the trademark in order to ensure the quality 
> of the goods or services in question.” (Anne Lauber-Rönsberg, in The 
> Commercial Exploitation Of Personality Features In Germany From The 
> Personality Rights And Trademark Perspectives, 107 Trademark Rep. 803, 
> 843 (2017)).
>
> ·In Germany and France, “there is no concern for preserving the source 
> function of trademarks by means of the provision and exercise of 
> quality control.” (Neil Wilkof, in Trademark licensing: the once and 
> future narrative, in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property 
> Licensing 216 (2013)).
>
> ·The European Court of Justice held in 2017 that failure to monitor 
> licensees doesn’t invalidate a registration, though the mark can be 
> cancelled if its use was deceptive. (W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei Gmbh, 
> Wolfgang Gözze GmbH v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse, case C-689/15, 
> _https://perma.cc/554Z-8TYD_).
>
> If many countries do not require oversight of trademark licensees and 
> such oversight can be lax or non-existent, then without more, we have 
> no assurance of close oversight domain names by their affiliates and 
> licensees around the world.
>
> 5) The remedies that our Small Team have discussed for termination of 
> a .BRAND that receives a Singular/Plural exemption are not consistent 
> with Specification 13.
>
> Jeff and Susan reasonably proposed the remedy of termination for a 
> .BRAND receiving a Singular/Plurals exemption, and then ceasing to 
> operate as a .BRAND: /“If at any time ICANN reasonably determines that 
> the TLD no longer qualifies as a .Brand TLD, Registry Operator shall 
> be considered in material breach of the Registry Agreement.  If the 
> .Brand TLD is unable or unwilling to cure such breach, ICANN shall 
> have the right to terminate the Registry Agreement.”/We do not disagree.
>
> *But Specification 13 dictates a different outcome. If a .BRAND cease 
> to operate as a .BRAND then it becomes an open gTLD. //*/Spec 13: 
> “//If at any time ICANN determines, in its reasonable discretion, that 
> the TLD no longer qualifies as a .Brand TLD, … then (i) the TLD shall 
> immediately cease to be a .Brand TLD, (ii) Registry Operator shall 
> immediately comply with the provisions of the Agreement as no longer 
> modified by this Specification 13 (other than Section 2 hereof) and 
> (iii) the provisions of this Specification 13 (other than Section 2 
> hereof) shall thereafter no
> longer have any effect.”/
>
> Truly such a change would immeasurably complicate consumer confusion 
> issues, and be fundamentally unfair to all who did not receive their 
> new gTLDs in the exemption process.
>
> _If we really wanted a fair and balanced exception, we would have had 
> one by now._
>
> In this incredibly talented group of Small Team members, if we had 
> wanted a fair and balanced exception, we would have found it weeks 
> ago. /Early on, we talked about the high standard we wanted for those 
> receiving exceptions and that, consistent with the policies of ICANN, 
> exceptions should be fair and balanced./ But that is not what has 
> happened.
>
> *Non-profits and Civil Society organizations are at least as driven to 
> monitor who receives their domain names as any .BRAND applicant.* The 
> motivation for Non-profits and Civil Society diligence comes from 
> their special status with their governments, their communities, their 
> donors, and the people at the local, national and international level 
> who benefit from their services. *Their reputations, and therefore 
> their existences, are intricately bound to serving their missions.* 
> *As a trademark owner can bind their affiliates and licensees who 
> receive domain names, Non-profits and Civil Society clearly delineate 
> their eligible registrants, based on specific, objective eligibility 
> criteria and enforceable mechanisms in Registry Voluntary Commitments 
> that are strong and binding. *
>
> -----------------------
>
> */A parallel exception would have been very fair and easy for us to 
> accept:/*
>
> Exception:
>
>  1. in the event that an entity applies for a string that is either
>     the plural or singular of an existing string in any language, that
>     entity’s application shall be allowed to proceed through the
>     application process and be delegated provided that it meets the
>     criteria for a Non-Profit and Civil Society Organization pursuant
>     to the presented and signed Registry Voluntary Commitment.
>  2. If at any time ICANN reasonably determines that the TLD no longer
>     operates pursuant to its commitments in the RVC, then Registry
>     Operator shall be considered in material breach of the Registry
>     Agreement.  If the Non-Profit or Civil Society TLD is unable or
>     unwilling to cure such breach, ICANN shall have the right to
>     terminate the Registry Agreement.
>
> _____________________
>
> _Defining Non-profit and Civil Society gTLDs_
>
> Non-profit and Civil Society gTLDs:
>
> 1.A non-profit or civil society gTLD meets the general definition of a 
> civil society organization under the UN, namely: Non-State, 
> not-for-profit, voluntary entities formed by people in the social 
> sphere that are separate from the State and the market. Civil society 
> groups are community-based organizations as well as non-governmental 
> organizations (NGOs).”)
>
> 2.Methods of verification, to be provided to ICANN, include:
>
>      1. Certification as a non-profit or civil society organization
>         under the laws of the country in which the organization is
>         registered; or
>      2. Confirmation of equivalence determination by a reputable
>         group, e.g. TechSoup (making a good-faith determination that a
>         non-U.S. organization is equivalent to a U.S. public charity); or
>      3. Recognition by an international organization such as the
>         United Nations.
>
> iii.The Applicant must document that it has been in continuous 
> existence for over a year prior to the filing of its TLD registry 
> application with ICANN.
>
> iv.The TLD string should be a key term or identifier that the 
> organization associates with itself and its mission.
>
> v.It should be owned and used continuously by the Registry Operator or 
> its Affiliates in connection with the Registry Operator’s or its 
> Affiliates’ offering of their non-profit/civil society services. Such 
> services shall not include services related to the provision of TLD 
> Registry Services.
>
> vi.only Registry Operator, its Affiliates or members in good standing 
> are registrants of domain names in the TLD and control the DNS records 
> associated with domain names at any level in the TLD;
>
> vii.the TLD is not a Generic String TLD (as defined in Specification 11).
>
> But our Small Team could not do that.
>
> _In closing, we note there is another new idea floating around the 
> Small Team that ICANN cannot look at the meaning of the words in 
> gTLDs, and that cannot be right or accurate._
>
> NCSG was very involved in the call for ICANN to not allow content to 
> be placed in Registry Voluntary Commitments, including the type of 
> content that would require ICANN to monitor the text, videos and 
> pictures placed on websites.
>
> *But that does not mean that ICANN can never again look at the meaning 
> of the word or the purpose of a word in a gTLD. That would invalidate 
> much of ICANN’s mission and purpose. *
>
> ICANN’s mission is and remains:
>
> /Section 1.1. MISSION/
>
> /(a) The mission of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
> Numbers ("ICANN") is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the 
> Internet's unique identifier systems as described in this Section 
> 1.1(a) (the "Mission"). Specifically, ICANN:/
>
> /(i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root 
> zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development 
> and implementation of policies concerning the registration of 
> second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). In 
> this role, ICANN's scope is to coordinate the development and 
> implementation of policies:/
>
> /For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary 
> to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security 
> and/or stability of the DNS including, with respect to gTLD registrars 
> and registries, policies in the areas described in Annex G-1 and Annex 
> G-2; and/
>
> /That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based 
> multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure 
> operation of the Internet's unique names systems./
>
> ----------
>
> *The limits of Bylaws 1.1 sections (b) and (c), include not imposing 
> rules on the content that domain names carry and provide, but does not 
> stop ICANN from looking closely at top level and second level domain 
> names. *
>
> *Saying otherwise would eliminate the URS and UDRP. *
>
> The basis of the UDRP and URS /is looking at the meaning of the second 
> level domain name, who has registered it and how they are using it. 
> /Although ICANN has delegated the authority for the review and 
> decision, the URDP and URS decisions are enforced by ICANN under its 
> Registry Agreements and Registrar Accreditation Agreements. This is 
> ICANN’s responsibility.
>
> *Similarly at the top level, ICANN must examine the nature of the 
> applicant, who they are, and how they intend to use the applied-for 
> gTLD. ICANN will review comments from the Community on these same 
> issues. This is part and parcel of the application process. *
>
> Three objection processes are based on these same substantive factors: 
> String Confusion, Community and Legal Rights objections. All decided 
> via delegated authority from ICANN and all enforced by ICANN. Even 
> reviewing a .BRAND application to see, among other things, if it is a 
> generic word involves ICANN looking closely at the Applicant, the New 
> gTLD, and its meaning. It’s all consistent with a much wider range of 
> exemptions, for Non-profits and Civil Society as well as .BRANDs, that 
> we could have created had we chosen to do so.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> As shared above, we have come to support Kurt’s concerns and proposals:
>
> /“I think it is much better to take a conservative approach for this 
> round and seek to avoid user confusion to the extent possible and 
> eliminate exceptions at this point. I also believe we should deliver 
> to ICANN an implementable policy that will avoid vagueness and 
> litigation, i.e., creating policy that facilitates the implementation 
> of a smooth running process. This is incredibly important for the 
> reputation of the multi-stakeholder model.”Kurt, 4 Aug./
>
> It’s not a perfect solution, but it is efficient, clear and fair.
>
> Kathy and Rebecca
>
> [1] 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13VIPAxR5OYAzgTvSiaWCBTzYT0siLC2mpt-1Tm3JxTA/edit#heading=h.oc222usgafq2 
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240903/324019ea/attachment-0001.htm>