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

["Chun Eung Hwi" <ehchun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tina Dam,

You are right in some senses.
As my own argument that in the same language family, there could be many
confusingly similar variants, and this should be carefully avoided. I agree.
But as you talk about Unicode scripts, I admit only one pattern of problem -
typographic similarity - in fact, this is what we call homographic problem.
Definitely, this typographic similarity should be also avoided.

However, if we use the term of variant - it is very comprehensive and truly
make serious confusion in cross-scripts situation. So, I suggest,
typographic similarity should be carefully avoided because of possible
confusion and collision, but semantical or phonetical similarity among
different script labels does not make any problem of "confusingly similar"
because different script labels itself ensure their distinctiveness.


regards,

Chun



2007/2/7, Tina Dam <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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
> > >
> > >
> >


--
---------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet Korea
chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
pcs (+82) 19-259-2667
fax (+82)  2-2649-2624