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

[Will Rodger <wrodger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> 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. 


But do they?

If I hear ".com" and ".kom" (think cyrillic script, for instance, here) 
am I not likely going to think the two are related, or the same? If I 
pronounce two TLds the same, won't the average user think one is a 
"translation" (common use of the term here, not the jargon we use on 
list) of the other?

I think the potential for consumer confusion is really big, too big to 
be ignored.  I'd go further -- the fact that we have to use words like 
"homographic" shows just how confusing the whole matter is.

Will