RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It might be helpful if we think about what the problems of confusingly
similar strings are.  I think one of the main problems is that users may
associate X and Y with one another and hence have similar expectations
for both. Here are some of the things that they may expect for both
TLDs: 1) the registry operator is the same: 2) dispute resolution
mechanisms are the same; 3) registration processes are the same; 4)
Whois policy is the same (e.g., both thick or both thin); 5) variant
tables are the same; etc.

For discussion sake, let's assume that strings X and Y are deemed to be
confusingly similar. Let's also assume that X is an ASCII string and Y
is an IDN version of X.  If X and Y are provided by the same registry
operator as variations of one another with the purpose of providing a
ubiquitous experience, then it seems to me that most, if not all, of the
problems pertaining to the problem of associating X and Y are mitigated.
If that is correct, then the problems of their confusing similarity
disappear.  On the other hand, if X and Y are offered by different
registry operators, then the customer experiences diverge and
expectations are not met in various aspects of the TLDs.

So what is my conclusion?  It is not sufficient to just identify whether
two strings are confusingly similar to one another if we do not also
determine whether use of the two strings would actually result in the
problems for which the new gTLD confusingly similar recommendation were
meant to avoid.  In other words, if two confusingly similar strings do
not cause the problems we are trying to avoid, then disallowing them
would be unneccesary.

There are at least a couple ways of dealing with this: 1) allow an
exception for applicants to offer IDN variations of their strings, which
I believe is Edmon's approach; 2) provide guidelines to evaluators to
determine whether the problems of offering confusingly similar strings
are mitigated by the uses proposed.

Does this make sense?

Chuck 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 7:15 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>