Historical Resolution Tracking Feature » 2008-10-01 - Financial Approval of Contractor Agreement for Multiple Language Algorithms relating to New gTLD Program Implementation

Important note: The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.

2008-10-01 - Financial Approval of Contractor Agreement for Multiple Language Algorithms relating to New gTLD Program Implementation


Resolution of the ICANN Board
Topic: 
Contract for String Similarity Algorithm
Summary: 

Board authorizes CEO, COO, and/or General Counsel to enter into agreement for algorithm-related services with SWORD for up to US$700,000.

Category: 
gTLDs
Meeting Date: 
Wed, 1 Oct 2008
Resolution Number: 
2008.10.01.05
Status: 
Complete
Implementation Actions: 
  • Contract with SWORD to develop String Similiarity Algorithm.
    • Responsible entity: ICANN Staff
    • Due date: None provided
    • Completion date: 27 January 2009
Resolution Text: 

Craig Schwartz set out the process ICANN staff pursued to develop a consistent and predictable tool (i.e., the algorithm) to inform the "string confusion" element of the new gTLD project. The development of an algorithm is intended to support the Board approved GNSO recommendation that "Strings should not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name."

Paul Twomey noted that is to allocate funds necessary to create the production version of the algorithm. Steve Goldstein questioned whether the contractor would be able to sell the algorithm tool to other people. Craig Schwartz noted that the tool is owned by the contractor and licensed to ICANN. Steve Goldstein asked whether some could gain a prospective advantage by licensing it from the contractor and using it to assess their proposed applications in the process.

John Jeffrey indicated that the tool is intended to be made available to applicants for testing their strings before formal submission and that he believed that the tool was similar to tools used by the contractor in support of national trademark offices and others and that it may not be useful or necessary for us to obtain proprietary rights over the tool applied to our use. John Jeffrey further noted that we had gained advantage from the contractors work for others, as well. The Chair noted that we should protect the ICANN position as warranted. Susan noted that we should be able to get something from the work that is objectively worth paying for and that we should guard against upgrades being escalated inappropriately.

Harald disagreed with Steve Goldstein's position on this point, indicating that if the contractor goes ahead and sells the product for matching strings to a million other people, the world will be a better place. The algorithms will be tested and that should not cause harm to ICANN. Susan Crawford agreed.

Harald asked whether visual comparison is included in the evaluative tools, and Craig Schwartz responded that the new work would include this component.

Janis Karklins inquired about other language scripts including Korean, Japanese and Arabic languages. Craig Schwartz indicated that the contractor timeline would have those completed by December 2008.

Wendy Seltzer inquired about whether the use by the applicants is included in the licensing. Doug Brent responded that the intention is for the applicants to test their strings. He noted that it is computationally expensive for the whole world to use it, but that if we wanted to do that, the license would let us. Doug Brent further noted that this matters because this comes to internal controls. A budgeted item and an item funded by incremental budget, we're taking a strict view of not taking a large project and splitting it up into different pieces. We have a good process for this and for implementing next round of changes. We're taking it to the board with the dates in question. The licensing, and use by our community has remained an important part of this discussion. The Chairman noted that he particularly appreciated the point that this will eventually go back into the other part of the budget, the new gTLD budget, and will be from the cost neutral and cost recovery approach.

Peter Dengate Thrush called for more questions and hearing none he moved the following resolution, which was seconded by Raimundo Beca:

Whereas staff recommended the purchase of algorithm services as required as part of the FY09 Operating Plan and Budget;

Whereas staff researched and investigated multiple options for algorithm service providers, performed due diligence, and identified SWORD as the preferred provider;

Resolved (2008.10.01.05), the Board authorizes the CEO, COO and/or General Counsel to enter into an agreement for algorithm-related services with SWORD for up to US$700,000.

Additional Information: