2022-08-03 IDNs EPDP String Similarity Review

Notes/ Action Items

IDNs EPDP String Similarity Small Team call

Wednesday, 3 August 2022

Action Items

Action Item: Staff to update deck for the EPDP Team reflecting two possible paths on Legal Rights and Community Objections.

Action Item: Staff to recirculate updated decks for small team review.

Notes

Welcome

• Reminder: The outcome reporting deck will be used to guide discussion with the EPDP Team about the work of the small team. The second half of the call will be devoted to reviewing the slides together.

Wrap up discussion of objection process

• Slides 73, 75, 77, 82: Added the mention of Limited Appeal Mechanism as recommended by SubPro.
• Slide 79, 80: Proposal with regard to Limited Public Interest, Community, and Legal Rights objections (summary of interim agreement with assumptions).
• Slide 79 focuses on assumptions used for this proposal.
• Question: Should the assumptions mention the alternative scenarios? Under 3, suggestion to mention that if variants can be requested between rounds, it impacts which strings might be subject to objection.
• Slide 80 includes Objection Process Proposal 1.
• Slide 81: Alternative scenario based on a different assumption
• Is this alternative scenario really something that should be considered? There does not seem to be a reason to reject the whole application based on a variant. There would also be impacts on existing TLDs where the RO might try to activate in the future. Therefore, the alternative scenario does not make sense.
• Question: Are there any risks if we eliminate this alternative scenario?
• Comment: For Limited Rights, if a trademark holder is concerned about a future application, it should be able to object to a blocked variant. Once the string is delegated, the blocked variant might get in the way of the future application. A similar argument might be appropriate for Community objections.
• Response: Why would you want to object when you are not applying for your string? The blocked variant will not be delegated. Why not object when you are thinking about applying?
• Follow-up: If a brand owner plans to apply in the next round, they rely on the objection process to stop another applicant that interferes with their future application.
• Response: It is not clear why the brand owner can’t apply in the future. Is it because it is confusable with one of the blocked variants?
• Follow-up: Yes. The existing RO could object during the future round based on the grounds of confusing similarity, preventing the brand owner from proceeding.
• Question: Could the same case be made for non-requested allocatable variants?
• Response: Possibly yes. This would be consistent.
• Comment: Support expressed for the idea that even though the blocked variants don’t do any harm in themselves, the existence of the blocked variants and the small group’s decision about the string similarity scope causes someone with an intended, applied for domain that is similar to a blocked variant to be in a position where they may not be able to apply in the future because of the blocked variant.
• Comment: There does not seem to be a justification for including LPI in the list of objections for which blocked variants can be the basis of the objection. Community objection is a borderline case. Cases would be rare. Cases for the Legal rights objection would also be rare, but possible and worthwhile to take into account.
• Question: What is the concern in opening up objections?
• Response: It was a question of “if something can’t be applied for, why would it be open for objections?”
• Response: If you open up the process to blocked variants, a successful objection means that a blocked variant can knock out the entire application even though it will never be in the root.
• Comment: Suggestion to give guidance to the panel that there should be a high bar in cases involving blocked variants. Clarification: The standard would be the same, but the objector would need to have proof that they are harmed.
• Question: Could the SubPro recommendation about frivolous objections be brought in here?
• Comment: From one perspective, the blocked variant won’t harm the trademark owner in practice. If you want to apply in a future round, it might stop you from doing so. But we should accept the first-come first-serve principle.
• Response: Disagree. It seems unfair to force a legal rights holder to apply for a TLD just to ensure that their rights are not infringed. Since they are able to apply for the primary label, they should be able to object to the non-requested or blocked variants even though they will be unlikely to succeed.
• Summary: If there is no agreement, we should put forward both options for Legal Rights and Community Objections, with the rationale for each option.
• Comment: It is difficult to assess the new proposal without understanding how likely the scenario might be and what the impacts might be. Data would be helpful. Is there a middle ground?
• Comment: This is new, so no data is available.
• Path forward: Put the options to the PDP Team with rationale and let the full group decide.

Action Item: Staff to update deck for the EPDP Team reflecting two possible paths on Legal Rights and Community Objections.

• Slide 84: Proposal with regard to String Confusion objection (summary of interim agreement)
• Reflects the hybrid model being applied to String Confusion Objections.

Discuss outcome reporting deck (25 min)

• Slide 15 – Clarification about text in lower right corner – This slide reflects the misconnection risks. A1 and B1 will both be delegated. A user mistakes A1 as B3, and therefore arrives at a site controlled by a different registrant than the one associated with B1.
• Slide 10 – clarification that in example 1, label A is a “real” word in German. It means “bite”. Example 5, label A is just like English “rich.” Examples 3 and 6 are based on feedback from the Arabic script community. They is not necessarily language based.
• Is there a way to make the slide more clear, reflecting what is being discussed?

Action Item: Staff to recirculate updated decks for small team review.

AOB

• Suggestion to keep the call on the calendar for next week. Small group members can look at the slides and provide feedback on list, but it may be helpful to keep the call, as well, in case there are substantive comments on the mailing list. If no substantive comments, the deck may be finalized over email.