RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

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

Please see my responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:43 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I guess I see a few issues on these second level schemes, among them
> 
> 1. There may still be confusion about what a user gets when 
> using these names.  The registrant may be the same so they 
> are probably not being phished, but still there are many 
> issues like what is the equivalent in another language/script 
> of most names. Several distinct names may have similar translations.

Chuck: That is true but that deals with the initial selection of string
and after that it is a matter of communication and education. Besides, I
don't believe that the new gTLD confusing similiarity restriction solves
the problem you are talking about anyway.  The point you make certainly
illustrates that it is very important for an existing gTLD operator to
do due diligence in selection its IDN strings so as to maximise
effectiveness and minimize confusion of the registrants in its
namespace.

> 
> 2. There seem to be a large number of possible ways to handle 
> the equivalences, each with somewhat different behavior.  Do 
> these need to be reviewed individually to make sure they do 
> not create more problems then they solve.

Chuck: Are you talking about equivalence at the second or top level?
Assuming you mean the second level, in the case of VeriSign's plan, we
are taking about exact at the second level. Otherwise we get into a
nearly possible situation where we have to make subjective judgements.
If a registrant wants to protect variations of its domain name, it will
be necessary to register each of the variations at least once in either
the LDH or IDN version of the TLD.

> 
> Also on the first level, I think we are still assuming the 
> these similarities is one of meaning, not visual or even 
> aural.  Since ambiguity of meaning is a vast issue as things 
> rarely translate that directly, how is one to disambiguate 
> between the translations, for example, of .com and .biz, .  
> So by saying that some names that may mean something close 
> are the same as another and sometimes they are different, is 
> in itself confusing.  
> 
> a.
> 
> On 2 Dec 2009, at 01:25, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
> > 
> > To offer a different example, an existing registry with an 
> existing pre-validation process and eligibility model, could 
> provide the pre-validation process and eligibility model -- 
> "the policy" -- to an applicant for the same (or more 
> culturally correct) string in a script other than Latin.
> > 
> > Chuck's example is an equivalence of a subset of a zone in 
> a second or subsequent zones with a common operator.
> > 
> > My example is an equivalent policy across two or more zones 
> with possibly distinct operators.
> > 
> > It is a challenge to find where user confusion arises in 
> either planned plurality across multiple name spaces with a 
> common operator, or policy consistency across multiple name 
> spaces with disjoint operators.
> > 
> > In both cases, all domain names for the ASCII and IDN 
> namespaces will have the same registrant, or no registrant. 
> Of course, the underlying resource records may point to the 
> registrant's script-specific resources.
> > 
> > Eric
> 
> 
>