<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details
- To: "'Mawaki Chango'" <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>, "'olof nordling'" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details
- From: "Tina Dam" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:31:06 +0100
Maybe this helps:
.com in Latin looks awfully like .com (with Greek o) and there are tons of
examples like that. Take a look in Unicode.
The root server will see the difference because the punycode version is
different because the Latin o and Greek o has different code points. For the
user though it looks similar.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:59 PM
> To: olof nordling; chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|