Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 30 Nov 2009, at 02:14, Edmon Chung wrote:

> I think I disagree with that interpretation.  The discussion in the IDN WG
> was whether existing gTLDs should be given presumptive priority or not, and
> that discussion led to them not given presumptive priority.  Whether a
> mechanism to allow for the processing of such application WITHOUT
> presumptive priority could be implemented is left open.

I think the committee of the whole the presumption was that of course they 
could apply, just without any particular priority given to their application.

> The policies also talk about confusingly similar strings.  But what is not
> included is whether a registry (whether existing or future) could thereupon
> apply for a confusingly similar string to its own TLD.  That is the part
> which I think requires some implementation attention for IDN gTLDs.


I agree that this is a valid point for discussion.

How does someone apply for a string that is confusingly similar to a string 
they already have.

Of course this is only a problem if the meaning of confusingly taken time mean 
something more then visibly and becomes a real issue when we are talking about 
similarity in meaning.  I have never accepted that this was a valid 
interpretation of confusingly similar - though I know others do accept that 
broader definition.

> The problem is not whether they are considered separate applications, but
> whether there should be a different way to process it given that the string
> applied for is in fact confusingly similar to a particular TLD.

You are right about this - is there exemption for the similar TLD to the entity 
who holds the TLD it is similar to?

Have thee been comments on this paticular topic that have been ignored?  I have 
not paid close enough attention to al the comments to know.


a.