Home / Blogs

New TLDs: Time For a Do-Over on Plural Similarity

Steve DelBianco

Mandarin is a tricky language, but ICANN may want to learn the expression chóngfù before leaving the Beijing meeting. Chóngfù means "do-over" and that's what ICANN needs to forestall an entirely preventable disaster in the delegation of new top-level domains (TLDs).

The issue of "string similarity" seems straightforward. Nobody inside ICANN or out there in the real world wants Internet users to be confused by new TLDs that are confusingly similar. Imagine hearing an ad offering low rates at car.loans but you encounter something completely different at car.loan instead? And what would stop somebody from launching a new TLD by just tacking an "s" onto popular domains like .com or .org?

The Government Advisory Committee (GAC) is catching a lot of flack for it's Beijing Communiqué, but one thing the GAC got right was its advice that singular/plural strings are confusingly similar.

So how did we get to a point where ICANN inexplicably failed to find confusing similarity for 24 pairs of singular and plural forms of the same words, including .web /.webs, .game/.games, and .hotel/.hotels? More important, how do we fix this?

Chóngfù is hard for westerners to say and will be even harder for ICANN to do.

For starters, a little transparency is probably in order. The string-similarity review process was opaque by design. But many in the community want to know how ICANN's experts either failed to recognize the plurality issue — which would be troubling — or decided that single and plural gTLD strings can successfully coexist — which would be ludicrous.

Thankfully, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has basic guidance on similarity: "words used in the singular include the plural and vice versa, as the context may require." That's the kind of common sense ICANN could use to correct the Guidebook and do a quick do-over on those 24 pairs of singular/plural TLDs.

ICANN may get a convenient backdoor out of this dilemma from the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, which is reviewing string confusion objections on seven of the single/plural pairs. If ICDR makes the right ruling, ICANN should apply that rule to all 24 single/plural pairs.

And if all else fails, there's always ICANN's "reconsideration" process for a formal chóngfù.

ICANN's critics at the United Nations and within many governments are waiting for a highly visible misstep in the ambitious expansion of top-level domains. That could be used to justify having governments displace the private sector in its leadership role on growing and governing the Internet.

Better that ICANN find a way to do-over on singular/plurals, than to risk having governments impose a bigger do-over on ICANN itself.

By Steve DelBianco, Executive Director at NetChoice
Follow CircleID on
SHARE THIS POST

If you are pressed for time ...

... this is for you. More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Vinton Cerf, Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet

Share your comments

how? McTim  –  Apr 11, 2013 9:02 AM PDT

Hi Steve,

By what mechanism do you see whereby "governments impose a bigger do-over on ICANN itself." ??

just askin.

Rgds,

McTim

How far do you think ICANN should go? Paul Tattersfield  –  Apr 15, 2013 1:22 PM PDT

Hi Steve,

How far do you think ICANN should go?

Do you think .hotel, .hotels, .hoteles and .hoteis should all be in the same contention set?

And do you think shop.apple & apple.shop is less confusing than apple.shop & apple.shops?

As some one who has provided expert testimony in Congressional hearings, it would be nice to know where you personally stand on these very important new gTLD framework design issues.

Thanks,

Paul

To post comments, please login or create an account.

Related

Topics

IP Addressing

Sponsored byAvenue4 LLC

DNS Security

Sponsored byAfilias

Cybersecurity

Sponsored byVerisign

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign

New TLDs

Sponsored byAfilias