RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs

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

Well said Edmon.  Thanks.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 9:14 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs
> 
> 
> Further comments below
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> > Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > 
> > Please see my responses below.
> > 
> > Chuck
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 
> 
> Edmon: I think Avri you probably mistook the idea... I think 
> what Chuck and I were talking about is NOT about translation 
> at the second level.  But offering the same string to the 
> same registrant under an IDN TLD.  More specifically, for 
> example, a registrant of "computer.asia" will be offered 
> "computer.???" (where "???" is "Asia" in Japanese), OR a 
> registrant for "???????.asia" (where "???????" means 
> "Internet" in Japanese) will be offered "???????.???".  There 
> is no translation involved.
> 
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> 
> Edmon: Answer for #1 above probably clarifies this.  Again, 
> there is no translation involved.  Therefore equivalence is 
> handled by having the same string and not some semantic translation.
> 
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>