Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Hedlund
23:35
Link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Annebeth Lange
24:23
I don’t recognise any name from ccTLDs
Giovanni Seppia
26:24
I have not seen the document before. I am afraid I will not be able to provide specific comments at this stage.
Annebeth Lange
28:10
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
Becky Burr
32:35
even with clarifying question, what is enforcement?
Rubens Kuhl
32:42
I liked .new and .news as example since it's more clear than .spring and .springs, but both work.
Annebeth Lange
32:53
Will there be a post-delegation procedure?
Annebeth Lange
33:27
I mean, in case the intended use is not fulfilled.
Jim Prendergast
33:41
if someone applies for the plural of an existing TLD but in a different language, would that be allowed?
Becky Burr
33:43
but what is the enforcement after?
Alexander Schubert
33:59
HAnds up
Katrin Ohlmer
34:03
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)
34:48
What if it's the same applicant for both singular and plural forms?
Alexander Schubert
34:54
Yes. My hand is up.
Justine Chew
36:06
Could/should applicants be advised to check a list of delegated or already applied for strings which won't be allowed?
Rubens Kuhl
36:08
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)
36:39
Thanks, Rubens.
Annebeth Lange
36:48
I interpret this sentence for the instances where both the applications are new, but for different intended use.
Katrin Ohlmer
36:54
+1 Justine
Alan Greenberg
36:54
Sorry to be late.
Paul McGrady
37:35
@Jeff, thanks!
Paul McGrady
37:52
Yes
Maxim Alzoba
39:05
it is not fully correct, cctlds are free to do what they invent
Maxim Alzoba
40:32
the existing TLDs should not be affected
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:35
RE the "Spring"example it just struck me that as not all elastic objects known as "ä spring
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:04
ids a "metal Object, we might use the term elastic device
Alexander Schubert
41:15
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.
Maxim Alzoba
41:48
also could be a cold clean water source
Jamie Baxter
43:27
+1 Alexander & Susan
Jamie Baxter
44:06
Becky’s earlier question about enforcement is an important one
Alan Greenberg
44:26
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.
Annebeth Lange
44:49
So this is to avoid to have both .hotel and .hotels both selling hotel rooms, right?
Alexander Schubert
45:36
Annabeth: It's to avoid that cheap.hotel and cheap.hotels as brands aren't confused for example.
Paul McGrady
45:44
@Annabeth, that seems to be the point, but it would not have precluded .hotel for overnight lodging and .hotels for shared office space
Alexander Schubert
46:39
+1 to Christopher's point. Example is ".icu"
Jeffrey Neuman
46:45
I am asking everyone to think outside the box. What other safeguards to we need? Obviously a contractual requirement along with enforcement.
Susan Payne
47:24
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
48:04
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
Maxim Alzoba
49:25
a registry could have own policy, like in one year to have a content related to water springs
Becky Burr
49:53
no, i dont
Becky Burr
50:24
Kathy Kleiman probably does not agree with me
Greg Shatan
50:52
What we’re discussing is not “regulation” at all. It’s contract compliance.
Alan Greenberg
51:04
But does CC agree with you??
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:14
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.
Annebeth Lange
51:32
This is quite normal in contracts. ICANN must be able to say that the applicant gets the TLD on conditions.
Becky Burr
51:43
yes, i am not speaking for ICANN legal
Becky Burr
51:48
just myself
Steve Chan
52:55
Comment, not on this topic, whenever you’re done with it.
Justine Chew
53:14
Can we set an AI to ask GDD for an explicit reply?
Julie Hedlund
53:24
That action item is captured in the notes @Jeff
karen.lentz
53:38
We will respond
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:56
THank you Jeff and Karen and staff.
Annebeth Lange
55:06
I think the visual should be kept, especially with scripts this is important
Anne Aikman-Scalese
55:15
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?
Jamie Baxter
55:42
+1 Anne - I share the same concern
martinsutton
56:20
@Anne - I expect it would be on a complaints basis rather than proactive searching from ICANN Compliance
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
56:47
+1 Martin
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:41
Yes - I'm aware of how it operates right now, but they seem a bit too busy.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:45
@Anne, an RO could institute proactive checks or requirements to ensure their PICS are complied with (if they wanted)
Susan Payne
59:40
all PICs are enforceable both via Compliance and via the PICDRP Kathy
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:04
proactive compliance is like minority report scifi
Jim Prendergast
01:01:10
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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:27
there should no be punishment before the violation
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:59
clause of the contract which is inherited
Jim Prendergast
01:02:48
ok - thanks
christopher wilkinson
01:03:05
@Maxim - indeed there are at least three ‘springs’ in EN.
martinsutton
01:05:20
What was wrong with SWORD?
martinsutton
01:05:25
Only kidding...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:34
Phew!
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:51
Martin, we could ask people if they prefer SWORD or COVID-19. I guess COVID-19 would have a real chance of winning.
martinsutton
01:08:16
True Rubens - at least they are trying to find a cure to the virus..
Susan Payne
01:10:47
I don't think homonyms have to be spelled the same, they just sound the same - no?
Annebeth Lange
01:10:51
I think the explanation of what homonyms mean, as Steve explained. It is quite complicated.
Justine Chew
01:11:17
either visually or phonetically similar
Paul McGrady
01:11:29
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"
Paul McGrady
01:12:34
goose geese
Paul McGrady
01:13:03
no
Paul McGrady
01:13:18
homonym would be there, their
Paul McGrady
01:13:50
to too two
Annebeth Lange
01:14:38
@Paul, I agree. We are going too far here. Why homonyms and not verbs
Justine Chew
01:14:39
potential user confusion
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:15:15
Homonyms could be confusing to end users.
martinsutton
01:15:31
Dialects can also pronounce words differently
Greg Shatan
01:15:43
Are “merry, marry and Mary” homonyms? In some parts of the US they are.
Annebeth Lange
01:15:55
It is a lot of words that can confuse users, but where do we stop?
Paul McGrady
01:16:52
+1 Greg. If the initiator of Christmas was memorialized in the .mary, we couldn't then use .merry to celebrate it. Bizarre outcome.
Justine Chew
01:17:19
I thought we were answering Paul's question :)
karen.lentz
01:18:10
Jeff, correct
Justine Chew
01:18:32
what about the .thai example?
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:36
Even though domains are sometimes relayed thru audio (radio, cons-calls etc.), I believe we should stick to the visual aspect in this evaluation.
martinsutton
01:19:02
+1 Rubens
Annebeth Lange
01:19:28
+1 Rubens
Paul McGrady
01:19:37
A pair of siblings decided to pare a pear but their pere objected.
Annebeth Lange
01:22:14
Agreed
Giovanni Seppia
01:23:36
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.
Annebeth Lange
01:24:34
@Giovanni, I agree. There must be possible to draw from this process into the SubPro
Annebeth Lange
01:27:18
Better to take it in the appeal process
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:28
Can we reference those standards in a footnote here
Paul McGrady
01:27:36
So, a different standard would apply on appeal?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:09
and then cross reference to the Apeals section
Justine Chew
01:28:30
So we need to add "Appeals" under section d.
Annebeth Lange
01:28:31
@Cheryl, makes sense
Paul McGrady
01:28:53
@Jeff - thanks. Can you get a price tag on that so that before our next conversation of appeals?
Justine Chew
01:28:55
Yups, it is
Giovanni Seppia
01:28:56
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"
Steve Chan
01:33:24
Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Michelle DeSmyter
01:33:24
20:00 UTC
Julie Hedlund
01:33:24
Thursday, 02 April at 20:00 UTC
christopher wilkinson
01:33:55
@calendar - please note that Europe is now on Summer Time. DST.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:30
@CW our plans ignore LOCAL time changes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:05
Good progress again today Team, thanks everyone... Bye for now!
christopher wilkinson
01:35:21
“ Jeff - yes but a 20.00 lUTC time now is 22.00 here
Alan Greenberg
01:35:22
Bye
Katrin Ohlmer
01:35:23
Bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:24
don't jinx us @Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:35:26
Bye all