RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Olof,

Basically, it looks to me as either you are in violent agreement with
Chun (then there might be some changes to the para./statement he's
referring to,) or you're missing the point, (or again, I'm lost.)
Your example refers to the "same script" (wether it's ASCII based or
else) whereby "confusingly similar" makes some sense. The point Chun
was making, as I've understood it, was that there is a problem
applying the notion "confusingly similar" in cross-script situation
("different languages", "different language script labels," etc.)

In other words, does it make any sense to assume that a new
non-ASCII, IDN gTLD might be "confusingly similar" to an existing
ASCII gTLD. If you (anyone) think so, then how and to whom? To the
DNS server? to some users? If not, then are we talking about an IDN
gTLD (string) in one script being possibly "confusingly similar" to
another IDN gTLD (string) in another script? And then again, at what
level: root server? user visual experience? and in the latter, to
what extent do we expect the users of different languages and scripts
to be the same, etc.? Ultimately, the rationale and relevance of this
notion may need to be reconsidered and clarified in the IDN context,
and if relevant, grounded in the IDN space as well as it may be the
case in the traditional TLD space. 

Or have I wholly missed the point?

Thanks,

Mawaki

--- olof nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Chun,
> 
> Thanks for your comments! One clarifying point, hopefully, would be
> that the
> "confusingly similar" test (as conceived in the new gTLD
> recommendations)
> would be applicable to concurrent applications for gTLD strings.
> Accordingly
> (by way of example in ASCII), if an application for a string
> ".tuvw" is
> received and another application (in the same script) is received
> for
> ".tuVw", where v and V symbolize variants (again for the sake of
> example
> only), they would be considered "confusingly similar" in the string
> tests
> and be handled in accordance with a specific procedure foreseen.
> Hence the
> statement you refer to.
> 
> Very best regards
> 
> Olof
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chun Eung Hwi
> Sent: den 6 februari 2007 19:59
> To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all, 
> 
>  
> 
> I couldn't catch up the recent debates, but I want to make quick
> comment on
> one issue of "limit confusion caused by variants", which I could
> read from
> conference call 23 January overview - 2.2 as follows; 
> 
>  
> 
> 2.2 Agreement to limit confusion and collisions due to variants.
> Agreement
> that this may be a stability and security issue and part of the
> reserved
> name process. Agreement that variants of an IDN gTLD string be
> treated in
> analogy with current practice for IDN SLD labels, i.e. variants are
> not
> available for registration by others. Agreement that this approach
> implies
> certain "ex ante rights" with similarities to the "confusingly
> similar" test
> foreseen in the New gTLD recommendations. Agreement that such
> "rights" must
> not be confounded with IPR rights as such. Some support for
> enabling a
> choice for an IDN gTLD strings with variants to only block variants
> or to
> use variants as aliasing. 
> 
>  
> 
> What I want to clarify here is the fact that variants come from the
> same
> language or the same language family. Therefore, the confusion or
> collision
> happen in the same language or within the same language family as
> well. We
> cannot use the term of variant in case when some translated or
> transliterated or phonetically same or similar words (language
> script
> labels) are to be taken into account. And obviously, in different
> languages
> or in different language families, there is no longer confusion or
> collision
> even when those  in respective language are similar or the same in
> graphics,
> semantics and sound because different language scripts must be
> distinctive
> itself. So, in this case, "confusingly similar" test cannot be
> applied.
> Accordingly, across different language script labels, there should
> not be
> any "ex ante rights" of the existing TLD label, and so any reserved
> name
> policy would not necessarily be designed. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Chun
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet Korea
> chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> pcs (+82) 19-259-2667
> fax (+82)  2-2649-2624 
> 
>