RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck, that helps a bit, but I would like to understand the details
of how an existing gTLD registry might offer an IDN equivalent "in a way to
minimize any confusion".  I think I saw a mention of 'sharing a root zone
file' but there was no explanation.  If this is already explained somewhere,
then maybe I just need to be pointed in the right direction.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
548 Market Street
San Francisco, CA  94104
(415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com  

-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:19 AM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

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
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>