<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
- To: <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
- From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 09:51:13 -0800
Chuck,
How do you mean "the chances of user confusion are null"?
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 6:59 AM
To: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
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
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|