[gnso-idng] phone question

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I got dropped again. decided to write since it was the end of the call.

Oh course it is possible, perhaps even likely, that I do not understand what 
you and Chuck are so patiently trying to explain.  But when I read your stmts, 
some of Chucks and Eric's, I see somewhat different approaches.  And I can 
imagine various different ways to solve this issue.  That to me is complexity.

Getting someone to mandate one practice that will satisfy all, would also 
require some complex work, work that could slow down the entire process.

I personally, again have not checked with the SG, do not see a problem with 
focusing some work on this topic and finding a way to deal with it in objection 
procedures or extended evaluation.  I personally would be against giving some 
special application status to incumbents to apply for 'their IDN-names' by 
allowing them to make an a-priori declaration that is is not CS because it is 
mine and I will take care of it - trust me.

Again this is partially tied up the degree of Confusing Similarity. If CS is 
just visual, then it is easier because almost none of these (except make the 
Farsi/Arabic example and the CJK examples) will be visually CS.  But since the 
Objection process is intended to allow people to argue for CS in terms of aural 
or worse yet, meaning, as well as transliterations, I think it is a very 
complex topic.  In fact it is so complex that even people who are relatively 
intelligent and not completely ignorant (though some of us may be slow to 
understand their coherent explanations) in the subject have trouble 
communicating clearly.

a.