2022-07-20 IDNs EPDP String Similarity Review

Notes/ Action Items

Notes

• Based on the work of this group, staff will prepare a presentation for the full EPDP Team. Small group members will have an opportunity to review, but if no major concerns are raised, the small group will not devote a meeting to go over the draft presentation.
• Slide 55 – Review of Assignment 3 for the small group
• Slide 56 – Example strings – Existing string A1 and applied-for string B1
• Slide 57 – Limited Public Interest Objection
• Discussion questions: Can someone submit a Limited Public Interest objection against B1 by arguing that: 

1. B1 is contrary to general principles of international law for morality and public order? 
2. B2 [if requested for activation] is contrary to general principles of international law for morality and public order? 
3. B2 [if NOT requested for activation] is contrary to general principles of international law for morality and public order? 
4. Any of B1’s blocked variant {B3, B4, B5…B12} is contrary to general principles of international law for morality and public order?  

• Clarification: The small group should not focus on the outcome of the objections process, but rather which strings should be subject to objections.
• Comment: Bullet 1: B1 is a given. Bullet 2: B2 is applied for string which could exist even if B1 didn’t exist. It’s requested for activation, Therefore, it must be subject to the objections process. Bullet 3: depends on whether Rys will be able to activate variants between rounds or only during rounds. If they can activate at any time, all the checks should be done upfront. If it’s only possible to activate in a round, the objections process could be done later. Bullet 4: not required. Those labels will never be in the root zone so no objections are necessary.
• Clarification: There are two different questions that need to be answered: Whether an objection can be raised on a string based on a variant if a variant is not being applied for; Question of procedure and time would be addressed based on the first question.
• The first question is tied into bullets 3 and 4 in the list above.
• Question: Why is the timing important for considerations of 3?
• Response: If TLDs can only be activated during rounds, there is no way it will be activated between rounds. The people who want to object are more active/willing to look at allocation during the rounds. If a Ry activates at a given moment in time between rounds that are many years apart, prospective objectors might miss their chance. If this is a case, it is better to have possible objections raised during the round in which the primary string is evaluated.
• Comment: In the event that we have an out of round procedure for activating variants, there could also be an objection process available on an ongoing basis but it might look different from objections processes in a round.
• Comment: There is a possibility that one of the blocked strings may be considered similar even though it may not be visually identical. This may be worth considering.
• Some support expressed for the proposal above that 1 and 2 are included and possibly 3, depending on circumstances.
• Slide 58 – Community Objection
• Can an established institution associated with a community submit a Community objection against B1 by arguing that: 

1. B1 has a substantial opposition from a significant portion of that community? 
2. B2 [if requested for activation] has a substantial opposition from a significant portion of that community? 
3. B2 [if NOT requested for activation] has a substantial opposition from a significant portion of that community?
4. Any of B1’s blocked variant {B3, B4, B5…B12} has a substantial opposition from a significant portion of that community?  

• Slide 59 – Legal Rights Objection
• Can a rightsholder submit a Legal Rights objection against B1 by arguing that: 

1. B1 infringes the existing legal rights of the rightsholder? 
2. B2 [if requested for activation] infringes the existing legal rights of the rightsholder? 
3. B2 [if NOT requested for activation] infringes the existing legal rights of the rightsholder?
4. Any of B1’s blocked variant {B3, B4, B5…B12} infringes the existing legal rights of the rightsholder?

• Comment: With the legal rights objection, it’s no longer just a visual similarity, but also meaning and phonetic sounds, which should be considered.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to add to slides the outcome if the objection succeeds or fails.

• Question: In the case of two applied-for strings, would there be a possibility of them going into a contention set as a result of the objections processes?
• Response: For these three that we have just discussed, the objector does not need be an applicant. These processes just impact the applied-for string. Only for the string confusion objection could the outcome be formation of a contention set.
• Summary: For community objections and legal rights objections, support expressed for handling the same way as limited public interest. If you argue that there is a legal rights issue with the string, you should only focus on strings that are going to be put into the root zone.
• Question: You could argue that blocked variants are part of the set. They could have the same meaning. Shouldn’t the blocked variants be part of the set that could be objected to?
• Response: It is not necessary. Even if you say that they have the same meaning, the objection could be made on the primary string. If for some reason the objection reason concerns the blocked variant and not the others, then it doesn’t matter because this string will never be delegated.
• Outcome: small group members initially express support for the same approach for Legal Rights, Community, and Limited Public Interest Objections, namely, take into account primary string, requested variants, and depending on the process for activating additional variants, possibly allocated variants not requested.
• Slide 60-61 – String Confusion Objection
• Can the existing TLD A1 operator submit a String Confusion objection against B1 by arguing that:
  • B1 is confusingly similar to A1?
  • B2 [if requested for activation] is confusingly similar to A1?
  • B2 [if NOT requested for activation] is confusingly similar to A1?
  • Any of B1’s blocked variant {B3, B4…B12} is confusingly similar to A1?
  • B1 is confusingly similar to A2?
  • B2 [if requested for activation] is confusingly similar to A2?
  • B2 [if NOT requested for activation] is confusingly similar to A2?
  • Any of B1’s blocked variant {B3, B4…B12} is confusingly similar to A2?
  • B1 is confusingly similar to any of A1’s blocked variant {A3…A6}?
  • B2 [if requested for activation] is confusingly similar to any of A1’s blocked variant {A3…A6} ?
  • B2 [if NOT requested for activation] is confusingly similar to any of A1’s blocked variant {A3…A6}?

• Question: What is the difference between the string similarity review and string confusion objection standard?
• Response: String Similarity review is done by independent panel. If someone doesn’t agree with the panel, they can raise the objection.
• Response: Standard is different. Scope is broader for the objection, doesn’t only take into account visual similarity. From the AGB: ““An application that passes the String Similarity review is still subject to objection by an existing TLD operator or by another gTLD applicant in the current application round. That process requires that a string confusion objection be filed by an objector having the standing to make such an objection. Such category of objection is not limited to visual similarity. Rather, confusion based on any type of similarity (including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning) may be claimed by an objector. Refer to Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures, for more information about the objection process.”
• Comment: If it is the case, from one perspective, the same model as the other objections should apply.
• Clarification: If an existing operator raises this objection, the applicant can’t proceed. But if it is another applicant raising the objection, a contention set is created.