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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

On 7 feb 2007, at 04.13, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:

> The problem is the question of what is "nearly identical" in cross- 
> scripts situation.
> As I reiterated in this thread debate, I think it should be limited  
> in "typographical similarity" cases. In fact, what constitutes  
> "typographical similarity" is neither an easy question. In that  
> respect, what "variant" means in cross-scripts situation should be  
> more clarified before the term such as "ex ante blocking" is to be  
> used although in my feeling, it seems to be inappropriate.

i agree it will be very important to define "typographical  
similarity" and "nearly identical"  very carefully.  i am not sure  
that 'i will know it when i see it' definitions will work because  
they will leave ICANN with a difficult subjective decision.

e.g. while i find .com and .kom sufficiently different i am sure  
others won't.  many of the examples people have shown a moot as they  
involve mixed script labels - which i think everyone accepts as  
illegal.  the case of the homologue variants (visual identity with  
different ascii representations) is an easy criteria to be objective  
about, but if we go beyond that i think we will need not only  
explicit definitions, but a vast set of examples to serve as a guide.

a.