Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Yes, and that is what comes out in the extended review.  As far as I can tell 
there is no provision  for an initial evaluation to take those complicating 
details into account.

Given the range of things that can be deemed similar, it would be very 
difficult to figure this out in an initial stage as far as I can tell.  As far 
as I understood the initial tests where going to flag anything that required 
more investigation.

Of course if the initial test are primarily for visual confusing similarity, 
and I know that is a bone of contention for some, then there would not be much 
of a problem.

a.

On 1 Dec 2009, at 15:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> One of the main purposes of the restriction on confusingly similar
> strings was to avoid user confusion.  We talked about that a lot.  If
> the chances of user confusion are null, why would the strings be a
> concern?
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 9:37 PM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>