Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.5.4

["Charles Shaban" <cshaban@xxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ram and Subbiah, I am sure Olof will do the needed in drafting
it.

Charles 

subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx> on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 12:57 AM
+0000 wrote:
>Fine. As it stood in the document it was an Alternative View to 
>"consider phonetically confusing gTLDs to be disallowed". If we are
>in 
>agreement and there is no other input, I imagine it should be left
>as is 
>or removed altogether - I don't have the magic formula, Olof
>probably 
>has to figure levels.
>
>As for the statement of fact regarding the law to run its course and 
>since I view facts being not debatable,  I have no issue.
>
> Just  an observation though  is that  when it comes to IDN  in
>native 
>scripts and  languages, the law itself  becomes  many-striped  and
>may 
>vary from locale to locale.  No this point does not need to be
>recorded 
>in the draft, just simply pointing out that everything becomes more 
>complicated when it crosses borders/cultures/languages.
>
>Cheers
>
>Subbiah
>
>Ram Mohan wrote:
>
>>Subbiah,
>>I understand your statement (and as a native Tamil speaker, was
>rolling on
>>the floor laughing at your example ;)
>>
>>I have no issues with the points you bring up regarding "sounding
>similar",
>>and in fact vehemently agree.
>>
>>To clarify what I meant in my statement - I understood Charles to
>say that
>>there is precedent in trademark law regarding confusing similarity
>using
>>phonemes.  Insofar as there is legal precedent and case law, then
>we should
>>allow the law to run its course.
>>
>>-Ram
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
>>Behalf Of subbiah
>>Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:47 PM
>>To: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Cc: 'Olof Nordling'; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.5.4
>>
>>  
>>
>>>- 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
>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>