Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Stéphane Le 1 déc. 2009 à 19:19, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : > > Mike, > > Maybe I should have said "minimized" instead of "null". It is probably > impossible to completely eliminate all chances of user confustion. > > My point is this: if two strings are confusingly similar but are offered > in a way that minimizes the risks of user confusion, they should be > allowed. For example: if the chinese version of .asia is proposed, it > is confusingly similar to the ASCII version of .asia; but if it is > proposed by dotAsia, the same registry operator as for the ASCII > version, and is offered in a way to minimize any confusion, there should > be no problem with that. In a case like that, there should be no need > for extended evaluation. > > Does that make sense? > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh >> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:51 PM >> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx >> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs >> >> >> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|