Link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

I don’t recognise any name from ccTLDs

I have not seen the document before. I am afraid I will not be able to provide specific comments at this stage.

I was not part of Fast Track on IDNs, I’m afraid. This documents should be commented by someone that was part of this WG

even with clarifying question, what is enforcement?

I liked .new and .news as example since it's more clear than .spring and .springs, but both work.

Will there be a post-delegation procedure?

I mean, in case the intended use is not fulfilled.

if someone applies for the plural of an existing TLD but in a different language, would that be allowed?

but what is the enforcement after?

HAnds up

Proposal for clarification: (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention -> (b) similarity for purposes of determining string contention between current top-level domain applications

What if it's the same applicant for both singular and plural forms?

Yes. My hand is up.

Could/should applicants be advised to check a list of delegated or already applied for strings which won't be allowed?

Gg, even in the case, there could be end-user confusion. So unless we are ready to require the same controls of variant TLDs, the problem persists.

Thanks, Rubens.

I interpret this sentence for the instances where both the applications are new, but for different intended use.

+1 Justine

Sorry to be late.

@Jeff, thanks!

Yes

it is not fully correct, cctlds are free to do what they invent

the existing TLDs should not be affected

RE the "Spring"example it just struck me that as not all elastic objects known as "ä spring

ids a "metal Object, we might use the term elastic device

Intention of the registry is only meaningful if supported (enforced) via restrictions (e.g. brand or community application). Open strings will be marketed by registrars - and they do not care about the "intentions" of the registry.

also could be a cold clean water source

+1 Alexander & Susan

Becky’s earlier question about enforcement is an important one

One open domain and one restricted (community or PIC), is a WORST case scenario. The open one can be used to masquerade as the restricted/closed one.

So this is to avoid to have both .hotel and .hotels both selling hotel rooms, right?

Annabeth: It's to avoid that cheap.hotel and cheap.hotels as brands aren't confused for example.

@Annabeth, that seems to be the point, but it would not have precluded .hotel for overnight lodging and .hotels for shared office space

+1 to Christopher's point. Example is ".icu"

I am asking everyone to think outside the box. What other safeguards to we need? Obviously a contractual requirement along with enforcement.

Thanks Jeff, yes I'm not necessarily objecting to the recommendation, I just couldn't see the contractual mechanism for restricting usage. But I may have missed this.

We will put in a recommendation for a mandatory PIC that they will commit to not using it as a plural or singular of the other

a registry could have own policy, like in one year to have a content related to water springs

no, i dont

Kathy Kleiman probably does not agree with me

What we’re discussing is not “regulation” at all. It’s contract compliance.

But does CC agree with you??

I agree with Alan - I think there is a difference between eligibility requirements and content assessment. But if Becky is okay with it then that may be indicative but I agree with Alan this needs opinion from ICANN Legal.

This is quite normal in contracts. ICANN must be able to say that the applicant gets the TLD on conditions.

yes, i am not speaking for ICANN legal

just myself

Comment, not on this topic, whenever you’re done with it.

Can we set an AI to ask GDD for an explicit reply?

That action item is captured in the notes @Jeff

We will respond

THank you Jeff and Karen and staff.

I think the visual should be kept, especially with scripts this is important

BTW - I think that analysis of potentially hundreds of domain names in a string to see if they comply with the PIC will require a whole lot more ICANN Compliance staff - are we considering that?

+1 Anne - I share the same concern

@Anne - I expect it would be on a complaints basis rather than proactive searching from ICANN Compliance

+1 Martin

Yes - I'm aware of how it operates right now, but they seem a bit too busy.

@Anne, an RO could institute proactive checks or requirements to ensure their PICS are complied with (if they wanted)

all PICs are enforceable both via Compliance and via the PICDRP Kathy

proactive compliance is like minority report scifi

If the TLD is sold, would new owner have the ability to change the "intent" and associated PIC? if yes - Is that an existing process or would something have to be developed? We've seen examples for .brand being sold to new operators who repurpose it for other means.

there should no be punishment before the violation

clause of the contract which is inherited

ok - thanks

@Maxim - indeed there are at least three ‘springs’ in EN.

What was wrong with SWORD?

Only kidding...

Phew!

Martin, we could ask people if they prefer SWORD or COVID-19. I guess COVID-19 would have a real chance of winning.

True Rubens - at least they are trying to find a cure to the virus..

I don't think homonyms have to be spelled the same, they just sound the same - no?

I think the explanation of what homonyms mean, as Steve explained. It is quite complicated.

either visually or phonetically similar

Definition of homonym From Dictionary.com: 0" a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air"

goose geese

no

homonym would be there, their

to too two

@Paul, I agree. We are going too far here. Why homonyms and not verbs

potential user confusion

Homonyms could be confusing to end users.

Dialects can also pronounce words differently

Are “merry, marry and Mary” homonyms? In some parts of the US they are.

It is a lot of words that can confuse users, but where do we stop?

+1 Greg. If the initiator of Christmas was memorialized in the .mary, we couldn't then use .merry to celebrate it. Bizarre outcome.

I thought we were answering Paul's question :)

Jeff, correct

what about the .thai example?

Even though domains are sometimes relayed thru audio (radio, cons-calls etc.), I believe we should stick to the visual aspect in this evaluation.

+1 Rubens

+1 Rubens

A pair of siblings decided to pare a pear but their pere objected.

Agreed

I am going to leave the call in few minutes as I have another obligation. I would suggest this group looks carefully at the scientific studies developed for assessing string similarity in a professional and sound way within the IDN ccTLD Fast Track. Again, it would be beneficial if the IDN ccTLD Fast Track lessons learnt in this area could be taken into account to ensure a consistent string similarity assessment throughout the TLD environment. String similarity panels must be made of true linguist experts that know how people's brain functions when looking at strings. This is one of the key lessons we learnt during the ten years of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track.

@Giovanni, I agree. There must be possible to draw from this process into the SubPro

Better to take it in the appeal process

Can we reference those standards in a footnote here

So, a different standard would apply on appeal?

and then cross reference to the Apeals section

So we need to add "Appeals" under section d.

@Cheryl, makes sense

@Jeff - thanks. Can you get a price tag on that so that before our next conversation of appeals?

Yups, it is

I am available for any further input, but I need to leave now. Bye everybody. The appeal took place three times in the Fast Track as other cases were treated "on a case by case"

Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes

20:00 UTC

Thursday, 02 April at 20:00 UTC

@calendar - please note that Europe is now on Summer Time. DST.

@CW our plans ignore LOCAL time changes

Good progress again today Team, thanks everyone... Bye for now!

“ Jeff - yes but a 20.00 lUTC time now is 22.00 here

Bye

Bye

don't jinx us @Jeff

Bye all