RE: [gnso-idng] phone question

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

Avri,

Please note 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 5:17 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idng] phone question
> 
> 
> 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.

Chuck: I'm not convinced that it has to be that complex overall.  I am
sure that there will be some cases that are more complex and those may
need to be handled in extended evaluation or through objection
procedures.
> 
> Getting someone to mandate one practice that will satisfy 
> all, would also require some complex work, work that could 
> slow down the entire process.

Chuck: In my opinion, this issue is trivial compared to some of the
overarching issues under consideration.  It's hard for me to believe
that a reasonable approach could not be worked out in relatively short
order that would not be controversial.  
> 
> 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.

Chuck: I agree that it is not a wise idea to give special status to
incumbents or any others for that matter.  I have not advocated for
that. After you were bumped off the call, I stated that the idea of
allowing registries to offer multiple variations of their names would
benefit new TLD operators as well as existing because some of them will
want to offer IDN versions of names.  Recommendation 2 says that
"confusingly similar" names should be resticted.  That should not be
interpreted as it appears it may to mean that similar names should not
be allowed; they should only be disallowed if they are "confusingly"
similar.  BTW, another thing we talked about after you were bumped was
that the principles we have been talking about could relate to similar
versions of LDH names as well.
 
> 
> 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.

Chuck: Whether names are deemed to be similar for visual, semantic, or
aural reasons, what really matters is whether or not they create
unacceptable user confusion.  That is really what we were trying to
avoid in the first place.  If the process does not adequately accomplish
that objective, then I think we failed.  

> 
> a.
> 
> 
>