Main Page: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<table cellspacing="0"><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff;border:1px solid #DDD;padding:7px 7px 7px 7px;" vertical-align="top"> | <table cellspacing="0"><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;background-color:#f5faff;border:1px solid #DDD;padding:7px 7px 7px 7px;" vertical-align="top"> | ||
<div style="margin:0;background:#cedff2;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #DDD;text-align:left;color:#000;padding-left:0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;padding-bottom:0.2em;">Timeline Concern:[[String Similarity Panel]]</div> | <div style="margin:0;background:#cedff2;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:120%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #DDD;text-align:left;color:#000;padding-left:0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;padding-bottom:0.2em;">Timeline Concern: [[String Similarity Panel]]</div> | ||
<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;margin-top:0.5em"></div> | <div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;margin-top:0.5em"></div> | ||
On January 11th 2013, it was announced during a [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD]] Webinar that results from the '''[[String Similarity Panel]]''' would not be released until March 8th. This was at least the second time the deadline had been pushed back, from an original release date of November, 2012. This created a great concern among applicants and their representatives present given the way that it would impact other timelines in the process. For example, formal objections are currently due March 13th, giving potentially contentious applicants less than one business week to consolidate and submit objections based off the findings of the [[String Similarity Panel]]. Other concerns were that ICANN representatives were unable to provide a rubric or guide to the methods involved in the review; i.e., such that if one application is the plural version of another ([[.car]] and [[.cars]]) then it should expect to be in contention. At this point the only tool that ICANN has highlighted is its use of the [[SWORD Algorithm]], though it remains unclear to what extent and how this will be employed along with other tools...''[[String Similarity Panel|More on String Similarity]] | On January 11th 2013, it was announced during a [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD]] Webinar that results from the '''[[String Similarity Panel]]''' would not be released until March 8th. This was at least the second time the deadline had been pushed back, from an original release date of November, 2012. This created a great concern among applicants and their representatives present given the way that it would impact other timelines in the process. For example, formal objections are currently due March 13th, giving potentially contentious applicants less than one business week to consolidate and submit objections based off the findings of the [[String Similarity Panel]]. Other concerns were that ICANN representatives were unable to provide a rubric or guide to the methods involved in the review; i.e., such that if one application is the plural version of another ([[.car]] and [[.cars]]) then it should expect to be in contention. At this point the only tool that ICANN has highlighted is its use of the [[SWORD Algorithm]], though it remains unclear to what extent and how this will be employed along with other tools...''[[String Similarity Panel|More on String Similarity]] |
Revision as of 15:46, 15 January 2013
Timeline Concern: String Similarity Panel
On January 11th 2013, it was announced during a new gTLD Webinar that results from the String Similarity Panel would not be released until March 8th. This was at least the second time the deadline had been pushed back, from an original release date of November, 2012. This created a great concern among applicants and their representatives present given the way that it would impact other timelines in the process. For example, formal objections are currently due March 13th, giving potentially contentious applicants less than one business week to consolidate and submit objections based off the findings of the String Similarity Panel. Other concerns were that ICANN representatives were unable to provide a rubric or guide to the methods involved in the review; i.e., such that if one application is the plural version of another (.car and .cars) then it should expect to be in contention. At this point the only tool that ICANN has highlighted is its use of the SWORD Algorithm, though it remains unclear to what extent and how this will be employed along with other tools...More on String Similarity |
||
Information on ALL new gTLDs!
|
Resources
|