Page History

...

On 24 June 2013, as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject to individual objections).

Events and findings, which have occurred since then, indicate that the transparent, predictable and objective criteria called for by the GNSO New gTLD Policy recommendations Recommendations 1 and 9 have not been met, ultimately resulting in Internet end-user confusion.

...

The ALAC is particularly concerned with the issue of singular vs versus plural strings. A central issue is that the "confusingly similar" test relies purely on visual similarity. Based on the initial evaluation adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string. The recent NGPC decision (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.d), re-affirms this position, although several NGPC members expressed regret that the wording of the Applicant Guidebook effectively forced this outcome.

...

The ALAC disagrees with the NGPC decision. The problem is the belief that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer terminology, would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is certainly part of human perception, but it is not limited to that issue alone. At issue is whether two strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and perception is a far more complex (and less understood) issue.

...

•  Some registrants would register (and defend) their 2^nd level names in both TLDs and map them to the same web and e-mail services. This Doing so would reduce the impact on users, but would of course increase costs to registrants (including defensive registrations in both TLDs) who must double their registrations. Moreover, due to either policy differences between the two TLDs, or due to timing constraints, such duplication may not be possible.
• Other registrants would use only one of the TLDs, resulting in quasi-random behavior from a user’s perspective. One cannot expect the typical Internet user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore the ALAC, which is responsible for representing the interests of Internet users in ICANN, believes that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar."

The ALAC advises the Board to revisit the issue of new TLD strings, which are singular and plural versions of the same word, and ensure that ICANN does not delegate strings that are virtually certain to create confusion among Internet users and therefore result in loss of faith in the DNS.

The ALAC is also concerned with the lack of predictability and consistency in objection decisions. Certainly allowing identical strings to be individually evaluated (based on different arguments and by different panelists) does not appear to have been a wise move. Moreover the clear lack of consistency among the evaluations of different panelists implies that overall, we will put either some TLDs in contention sets where it is not justified, or delegate strings that will cause user confusion.

...

•  Some registrants would register (and defend) their 2^nd level names in both TLDs and map them to the same web and e-mail services. This would reduce the impact on users, but would of course increase costs to registrants (including defensive registrations in both TLDs) who must double their registrations. Moreover, due to either policy differences between the two TLDs, or due to timing constraints, such duplication may not be possible.
• Other registrants would use only one of the TLDs, resulting in quasi-random behavior from a user’s perspective. One cannot expect the typical Internet user to be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore the ALAC, which is responsible for representing the interests of Internet users in ICANN, believes that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar."

The ALAC advises the Board to revisit the issue of new TLD strings which are singular and plural versions of the same word, and ensure that ICANN does not delegate strings that are virtually certain to create confusion among Internet users and therefore result in loss of faith in the DNS.

The ALAC is also concerned with the lack of predictability and consistency in objection decisions. Certainly allowing identical strings to be individually evaluated (based on different arguments and by different panelists) does not appear to have been a wise move. Moreover the clear lack of consistency among the evaluations of different panelists implies that overall, we will put either some TLDs in contention sets where it is not justified, or delegate strings that will cause user confusion.

...