RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
Stephane, Please see my responses below. And let we qualify all of this discussion with this caveat: VeriSign management is very firmly committed to the approach I am describing, otherwise we would not have communicated it publicly, but when it is actually implemented, the fine details will have to be worked, so please allow some flexibility in that regard. Also, please allow me a small margin of error in case I mistakenly describe some details because the approach is a work in progress and my understanding of it may not yet be perfect. At the same time, I am confident that I do understand the major aspects of the approach enough to describe it as an illustration. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:46 AM > To: Gomes, Chuck > Cc: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs > > Chuck, > > Your example makes very interesting reading. Thanks for take > actual live Verisign examples to the list, that's very helpful. > > So I am right in understanding that no matter how many IDN > variants of .COM Verisign launches, the intent is that the > holder of an ASCII .COM name, say EXAMPLE.COM, would > automatically be listed as the owner of the corresponding > EXAMPLE.(IDN_COM)? Chuck: You are mostly correct. First, of all I think it is best to avoid the term 'owner'; registrant is a more accurate term. It is not correct to say that the holder of an LDH.com would "automatically be listed as the owner (registrant) of the corresponding" LDH.IDN_COM. Let me use VeriSign.com as an example. VeriSign, Inc. is the registrant of VeriSign.com. VeriSign, Inc. would not automatically become the registrant of VeriSign.IDN_COM but VeriSign, Inc. is the only one that will be allowed to activate the IDN version; no one else could registrer VeriSign.IDN_COM even if VeriSign, Inc. has not activated it. BTW, the same principle would work for an IDN second level name; it does not have to iniitate with an LDH second level registration. > And is this automatic correspondence only > valid for the direct equivalent of the 2nd level name? In > other words, I am right in thinking that having EXAMPLE.COM > does not entitle me to (IDN-EXAMPLE).(IDN_COM)? Chuck: Yes. Otherwise, as I stated in an earlier response to Avri, we would be put into a nearly impossible situation of making subjective judgements. It is up to the registrant to decide what variations of its name they consider equivalent and to register those. Again for example, the fact that VeriSign, Inc. is the registrant of VeriSign.com would not mean that only VeriSign_IDN.com or VeriSign_IDN.IDN_com would be protected; VeriSign would have to register VeriSign_IDN.com or VeriSign_IDN.IDN_com. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > Le 2 déc. 2009 à 00:34, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : > > > > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|