[gnso-idn-wg] Fwd: RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

FYI and consideration.


--- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on
> string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Hello Bruce,
> 
> thanks for the clarification, and indeed, I confirm that beyond the
> notion of "typo-confusion" I actually implied "visual confusion".
> I'm
> not sure we really need to address the fact that a user could type
> a
> key instead of another one that is in the same area on the
> keyboard.
> That micro-management approach would lead us really too far,
> considering each letter that already appears in existing gTLD (and
> in
> others to come), and the characters that surround it on the QWERTY,
> the AZERTY, the QWERTZ, etc. keyboards???
> 
> So yes, correcting myself, I was thinking to "visually confusing",
> or
> as Ross proposed "typographically similar". 
> 
> > I prefer the more general "confusingly similar" as this has
> > precedence with use in distinguishing trademarks and there is
> some
> > experience in the community
> 
> That's not really the point, but as you said yourself later on in
> your reply to Ross, rather: 
> 
> > I think the point was that the term may be "broadly" understood. 
> >
> Of course different legal frameworks probably have different
> > interpretations.
> 
> "Broadly understood" also leads to misinterpretations as we all
> know
> from the Council experience. Then the questions are: is the
> practice
> (or "precedence") you're referring to - which is related to
> trademarks - fully valid for domain names? and has that practice
> produced any clear definition (understanding and agreement in the
> community) as to what is "confusingly similar"? If there is such a
> thing, then we need to restate it in our final document so that
> it's
> clear what we're referring to. But if the answer to any of those
> questions is "no", then ICANN should be allowed to "re-invente the
> wheel" here, or rather, this is not exactly about "re-inventing the
> wheel" (using your words), but about making a relevant policy where
> there was lack of policy. 
> 
> In conclusion, I agree with you when you write:
> 
> "We are essentially dealing with a security issue that results when
> strings look sufficiently similar to cause significant confusion
> amongst the general public - mainly from a visual perspective.   If
> there is another way of wording this then please suggest
> appropriate
> wording."
> 
> and would support any additional texts that could help clarify
> whatever needs to be clarified.
> 
> Mawaki    
> 
> 
> 
> --- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Mawaki,
> > 
> > Please use the new gTLD committee mailing list for discussion.
> > (gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> > 
> > > 
> > > I am not sure if the definition of "confusingly similar" 
> > > provided here is clear enough to avoid contentious 
> > > interpretations, and if it totally reflects the discussions 
> > > in Amsterdam. To my recollection, at the end of the 
> > > discussions there was a widely shared opinion that we should 
> > > restrain the confusion criterion to typo-confusion (i.e., in 
> > > what the user can see and what s/he can imply from it).
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > "typo" confusion - is more related to the use of particular
> > keyboards
> > where it is easy to make a mistake in typing.   E.g mistyping "n"
> > for
> > "m".  Ie "tonkim" instead of "tonkin"
> > 
> > Other forms of confusion can be more visual.
> > 
> > E.g example and examp1e  are not mis-typings.  The "l" and the
> "1"
> > are
> > in very different parts of a keyboard.
> > 
> > I prefer the more general "confusingly similar" as this has
> > precedence
> > with use in distinguishing trademarks and there is some
> experience
> > in
> > the community.   I don't believe that ICANN should be
> "re-inventing
> > the
> > wheel" but taking advantage of similar established processes
> > developed
> > over many years where possible.   Remember that it is likely that
> > we
> > will have internationalised domain names and the chances of
> strings
> > looking "confusingly" similar are increased.
> > 
> > Ultimately we will learn more through some case history once the
> > initial
> > round is complete.
> > 
> > Not also that any contentious situations will be referred to an
> > expert
> > panel with hopefully some diversity of expertise as well as
> > experience.
> > 
> > Perhaps you can give some examples where you think the term
> > "confusingly
> > similar" may give rise to undesirable outcomes?
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Tonkin
> > 
> > 
> 
>