[council] Personal Thoughts on String Similarity

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

In preparation for our Council call this week where the topic of String 
Similarity will be discussed, I wanted to provide these comments which are my 
own and not necessarily the views of the Registries Stakeholder Group.

Like many in the ICANN community, I have expressed some frustration about 
inconsistent application of ICANN's standard for new gTLD objections based on 
claims that an applied for string is "confusingly similar" to another proposed 
gTLD or to an existing TLD.  This led me to ask Christine Willett during the 
last ICANN Webinar Update how the ICANN staff intended to proceed in such cases.

I want to be clear, however, that "consistent" application of the confusingly 
similar standard DOES NOT require the "same" outcome for all applications for 
the exact match for a particular string.   If that were the case, then the 
dispute resolution panels would be required to evaluate the likelihood of 
confusion without regard to each applicant's unique plan for a gTLD string and 
their arguments articulating why such plans would not cause confusion.  That 
would be a huge mistake.  In fact, the proposed use of a new gTLD is highly 
relevant to the question of whether or not there is a likelihood of confusion.  
Indeed, it is to be expected that expert panels might reasonably conclude, as 
has apparently happened, that the string ".cam" is confusingly similar to 
".com" in one case but not in another.  As lawyers for United TLD argued in 
that case (in a publicly accessible letter), "Consolidation has the potential 
to prejudice the Applicants if all Applicants' arguments are evaluated 
collectively, without regard to each Applicant's unique plan for the .cam gTLD 
and their arguments why such plans would not cause confusion."

In fact, the complained-of inconsistency in other cases appears to arise from 
the panel's failure to actually take account of the context in which a proposed 
gTLD would operate.  Examples include translation cases where the different 
markets were likely not considered.

My point is that the community and applicant pool each have legitimate 
interests in the consistent application of ICANN's standard for determining 
whether or not two strings "confusingly similar."  Those interests do not, 
however, justify further delay or re-opening cases where context supports a 
finding of confusing similarity in one case but not another.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079  Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / 
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>