RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,
 
Let me use our own plans for IDN versions of .com and .net as an
example.  Our current plans that we have communicated to our customers
and others is as follows:
Second level registrants for any .com or .net domain names will have the
right to activate their second-level name for any IDN versions of the
corresponding .com or .net name and no one else will be allowed to do
that.
All second level registrations for IDN versions of .com or .net will be
associated with their corresponding ASCII .com or .net as applicable.
In essence, the result will be that all active second level domain names
for .com or .net (ASCII or IDN) will have the same registrant.  For any
that are not activated, they will be unavailable to others.
I don't think there should be any user confusion in the DNS in this
approach.  Do you?
 
Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:40 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> 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
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>