Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not remember any GNSO policy conversation that covered this point and 
always assumed that this would be the mechanism for rectifying such 
coincidences.  

Are there any of the discussions in the policy recommendations that give this 
impression?

a.

On 30 Nov 2009, at 19:04, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> An extended evaluation shouldn't even be needed in cases like this.  It
> was never intended that the confusingly similar restriction would be
> used for variations of the same name by the same operator.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:45 AM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> Would/could  this not be dealt in the extended evaluation 
>> stage where one requests an extended review of the rejection 
>> on the basis of Confusing Similarity because there is no risk 
>> of adverse effect?
>> 
>> Or do you think it should be a complicating factor in the 
>> initial evaluation?  Do we need a stmt somewhere in the doc 
>> allowing for this possiblity?
>> 
>> Personally I think that using standard process for the 80% 
>> case and the extended review and other review/appeals 
>> processes for the complicated questions (20%) is one of the 
>> more clever things in the GNSO recommendations that has been 
>> adequately, I think, translated into the DAG.  I think one of 
>> the places where we run into problems is where people with 
>> the 20% concerns don't want to have to resort to the review 
>> processes, be it confusingly similar or geo names.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 30 Nov 2009, at 08:57, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 
>>> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>>> Here's what I think is a simpler way to make my point: If the 
>>>> problems anticipated by offering confusingly similar strings are 
>>>> avoided, then the restriction of offering the strings is 
>> unneccessary.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Agree.
>>> 
>>> We're not doing string comparison for the mathematical 
>> pleasure of describing the algebraic structure of semi-groups 
>> and their generators, but because some non-algebraic property 
>> exists outside of the universe of character repertoires and 
>> the strings generated over them, some property with a lawyer attached.
>>> 
>>> More broadly, some, if not all of the IRT issues are dealt 
>> with if the application is not considered in an artificial 
>> vacuum. There's not a lot more gained by lawyering in the 
>> abstract than from string manipulation in the abstract.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, restrictions are context dependent, not absolute.
>>> 
>>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>>