comment (.рус/.com[.ком])

["D. F." <180587df@xxxxxxxxx>]

The following comment lists unresolved user confusion issues  which should
be the basis of Public Interest Commitments and/or ICANN guidelines.


As stated in ICANN policy documentation, string similarity which could
result in user confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS is to be avoided
both at the top level[1] and second level[2].

However, it has come to our attention that the following user confusion
issues have not been addressed by ICANN nor the concerned applicants:

1) Unless objections are filed or dispute resolution process started
against an applied for string, the string will only be screened for visual
similarity[3]. This may not be sufficient to alleviate user confusion for
strings whose target markets are non english speaking.

For example, in russian speaking market, ascii domains are commonly
transliterated in cyrilic in written communications. As a result, the .ru
TLD is used  interchangeably with ((py)) which is confusingly similar to
((pyc)). Furthermore, the two strings are aurally similar in the russian
language, yet aural similarity is not evaluated for uncontested strings. It
is also of concern that the two strings are confusingly similar in meaning
for russian speaking internet users.

2) Despite public claims by Verisign that their plans for second level IDN
registration[4] would not cause user confusion, these plans have not been
officially included in their new gTLD applications. As a result, there is
no guarantee that these plans will be duly implemented by the registry.
Furthermore the ICANN community has not had the opportunity to comment on
the said plans.

This lack of clear second level registration policy is also an issue in the
case of PIR's IDN applications and any other string application which is a
translation or transliteration of another TLD, such as site and ((site)),
online and ((online)) etc.




[1] Applicant Guidebook 1.1.2.10 String Contention
Applicant Guidebook 2.2.1.1 String Similarity Review
Applicant Guidebook 3.2.2.1 String Confusion Objection

[2] Applicant Guidebook 1.3.2 IDN Tables
Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names,
Version 3.0, <
http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-guidelines-02sep11-en.htm>

[3]Applicant Guidebook 2.2.1.1 String Similarity Review

[4] "Our current plans that we have communicated to our customers and
others is as follows:
Second level registrants for any .com or .net domain names will have the
right to activate their second-level name for any IDN versions of the
corresponding .com or .net name and no one else will be allowed to do that.
All second level registrations for IDN versions of .com or .net will be
associated with their corresponding ASCII .com or .net as applicable. In
essence, the result will be that all active second level domain names for
.com or .net (ASCII or IDN) will have the same registrant.  For any that
are not activated, they will be unavailable to others. I don't think there
should be any user confusion in the DNS in this approach." Chuck Gomes,
Verisign, see http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idng/msg00223.html


_____________________________________________


В следующем коментарии представлены вопросы/заблуждения с которыми
сталкиваются пользователи и которые должны
лежать в основе публичных обязательств.
 В политике ICANN говорится о схожести строк, которые могут привести в
замешательство пользователей и потере доверия к DNS.
Путаници следует избегать как и между доменами первого уровня так и доменов
второго уровня.
Не смотря на это ряд проблем не были учтены ICANN:

1.Например в России как правило употребление доменов латинскими буквами
сопровождается транслитерацией на русском языке,
домен верхнего уровоня ".ru" часто употребляется в названиях как ".ру"
который является до степени смешания с доменом ".рус"

2. Не смотря на публичные планы Verisign на второй уровень регистрации [
пример.com <http://xn--e1afmkfd.com/> / пример.ком]
эти планы не были официально включены в new gTld program. В результате, нет
никакой гарантии, что эти планы будут реализованы
должным образом в реестре. Кроме того сообщество ICANN не  прокомментировал
данные планы.