Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
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?
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
Gg Levine (NABP)
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.
Gg Levine (NABP)
I interpret this sentence for the instances where both the applications are new, but for different intended use.
Sorry to be late.
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
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
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
Yes - I'm aware of how it operates right now, but they seem a bit too busy.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
@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?
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"
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
Gg Levine (NABP)
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 :)
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.
A pair of siblings decided to pare a pear but their pere objected.
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
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
don't jinx us @Jeff