[gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.5.4

[subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

> - Item 4.5.4: I support the alternative view that phonetic confusing
>  

Ram, 

you asked this question below regarding 4.5.4.

Ram: I am in general support of this also.  Are there dissenting views in our
WG?

My response: 

I must say that I am strongly against this. If we start straying too far from the limited 
cases of visually confusing spoofing to blocking "phonetically confusing" (i.e. 
sounding the same) we are going into run into a lot of problems. The next thing, after 
sound we will be blocking is any gTLDs that smells the same, or elicit the same emotional 
response from humans (like anger or laughter).

The sounds of one language are not owned by another. Moreover when a person sees another language and converses in that the speaker contextually understands what is being said in that language - phonemes are processed in the context of the language being used. If that were not the case the following situation would have merit. 

First, the voice-box of a human is limited to only a small and finite set of phonetic sounds exist across all languages. Second, I also understand that we wish to keep the number of syllables in a gTLD label short (typically one or two syllables - phonemes) - otherwise we could all be typing xn--abcgtf for the gtld instead. Taking the two together will leave us with a small set of acceptable phoneme combinations for IDN gTLDs across all Unicode langauges - probably around a 1000 or so. Now I can absolutely assure you that most langauges have several short (for presumably efficency of use in anger, usually one or two syllables) perjorative terms/sounds. 
Thus its extremely likley that many reasonable candidates for a gTLD in one langauge will end up being completely unacceptable phonetically in another langauge. To illustrate we can use Tamil and English with real life examples that are only mildly objectionable. 

The Tamil word for flower (a 1 character word in Tamil) sounds like "poo" (3 characters in English) while in English its baby-talk for "sh.t". Of course helpfully its English baby-talk 3-character cousin "pee" is, if not in detail meaning the same, is at least categorically correct in Tamil as it means "sh.t" (again single character in Tamil). As a native speaker of both, if for one moment I were to keep the concepts/phonemes of the first langauge in my head while i speak the second, I will start talking nonsense and end up embarrasing myself, figuratively, not literally :-) 

So the language context takes precedence over phoneme usage itself...

Thus if we place limits based on phonetic similarity we will find many many things to be disallowed and I am certain almost any one or two-syllable string will be objectionable in at least one other langauge. 

Therefore on the grounds of both logic and simplicity I strongly disagree that the notion 
of "phonetically confusing" should be entertained as basis of any IDN gTLD 
selection limiting criteria.

Subbiah


Ram Mohan wrote:

> Dear Charles and WG members,
> Please find below my responses to your proposals made yesterday to the WG
> list.
>
>  
>
> > - Item 4.1.1: I support the "alternative view" that we should resolve
> > IDN policy issues before launch of application round.
> >    
>
> + What is the WG view on this suggestion?  So far, we have said that we want
> to avoid "hostage situations" but we've also said that IDN issues need to
> stay a high priority.
> + My personal view is that IDN policy issues should continue to get strong
> attention from the GNSO Council.
>
>  
>
> > - Item 4.1.5: I support the alternative to resolve policy before
> > developing priority criteria. I would be very cautious about "lower
> > entry barriers" as a way to address this problem, which barriers
> > would be lowered? those involving technical issues? security and
> > stability? More clarification to the lower entry barriers is needed.
> >    
>
> + I agree that lowering entry barriers needs far more careful study than has
> been done so far.
>
>  
>
> > - Item 4.2.2: I agree that a country should be able to reserve IDN
> >    
> strings for the country name. Beyond that, I support the alternative
> that countries' rights are limited to their respective jurisdictions.
> I strongly agree, however, that the opposition of the established
> institutions of a particular language group to a proposed TLD
> (whether ASCII or IDN) targeted to that language group should provide
> a basis for ICANN to defer or deny the application (I understood that
> a similar rule is under study in the new TLDs committee to apply to
> economic or cultural sectors, e.g., .bank or .library).
>
> + I agree regarding country name reservations.  I advocate caution towards
> making any statements regarding jurisdiction.
> + I agree regarding ICANN using input from language institutions in its
> evaluation process.
>
>  
>
> > - Item 4.5.4: I support the alternative view that phonetic confusing
> >    
> similarity should be a basis for refusing an application. There is
> plenty of experience under trademark law in resolving conflicts
> between words in different languages that sound similar.
>
> + I am in general support of this also.  Are there dissenting views in our
> WG?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ram Mohan
> e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>  



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/726 - Release Date: 3/18/2007