ICANN has just opened up a comment period “to solicit community input regarding a proposed review mechanism to address perceived inconsistent Expert Determinations in the String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Program”
The comment period is limited to the Expert Determinations made on String Confusion objections for .CAR/.CARS and .CAM/.COM.
The comment period closes on March 11, at 23:59 UTC
To file a comment you can do so by sending an email here.
The String Confusion Objections are administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). Expert Determinations have been issued by the ICDR for all String Confusion Objections filed.
If adopted, the review mechanism would constitute a change to the String Confusion Objection process in the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook.
Given that the proposal to implement this review mechanism could affect the outcomes of one or more of String Confusion Objections – a process that was informed by years of debate and public comment as part of the development of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook – the proposed review mechanism is being published for public comment.
.cam/.com/.cum is greater
VeriSign objected independently to each of 3 applicants for .CAM. One arbitrator decided two of the cases in favor of two .CAM applicants. The third objection was decided independently by a different arbitration panelist against .CAM (ruling of probable confusion between .COM & .CAM).
The panelist who ruled in favor of the other .CAM applicants had the benefit of large-scale, multicultural studies designed and conducted by a PhD Consumer Psychologist that provided strong data along multiple dimensions indicating that .CAM & .COM are not perceived to cause (probable) confusion. As well as the expert testimony of a PhD anthropologist (Dr. Ksenia Golovina) with international language expertise.
The panelist (who ruled in favor of .CAM) stated that he found the study data and expert analyses to be comprehensive and persuasive. The single panelist who thought there would be “probable” confusion between .CAM & .COM did not have the benefit of the extensive multicultural survey data and expert analyses.
I believe that if the panelist with the single opposing ruling had the opportunity to review the multicultural data and expert analyses, he too would have found the likelihood of confusion (between the focal TLDs) to be less than probable. However, in the interest of full-disclosure, I acknowledge that I am biased because I am the expert who designed and conducted the influential international study demonstrating an absence of (probable) confusion between .CAM & .COM.
@ Dr. James Wright LOL, yes all very confusing, well you’re post is anyway. It is clear to anyone that “cam” and “com” will be confusing a All ICANN are interested in is money, nothing more nothing less. Anyone with a brain would have introduced maybe 3 or 5 new TLD’s ,not the ridiculous number ICANN are allowing.
Where’s the comment period on inconsistent UDRP decisions?
George
The announcement was linked to in the post
Here it is again:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/sco-framework-principles-11feb14-en.htm
I know, Mike….I was pointing out (in an indirect manner) that ICANN makes anything related to new gTLDs a priority, whereas UDRP reform is put on the back burner despite many inconsistent UDRP decisions by bad panelists.