[gnso-idng] Re: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Here's another example why I believe that clarification of the 
> confusingly similar restrictions recommendation is needed: It was made 
> very clear that the League of Arab States would like to apply for two 
> gTLDs, .arab and . *ي عرب*
>  
> I think it is safe to conclude that these two TLDs are confusingly 
> similar because the mean the same thing.  If the League of Arab States 
> was the registry for both gTLDs, would the two strings cause user 
> confusion?  I seriously doubt it.  Should the League of Arab States have 
> to go to Extended Evaulation to establish that?  I certainly do not 
> think so.
>  
I was under the impression that the League of Arab States was pursuing 
an iso3166-1 allocation, which, given the dozen regional intellectual 
property entities which have iso3166-1 allocations, or more generally, 
the utility of regional associations such as the Organization of 
African Unity, the Organization of American States, ..., that the 
League having a TLD as an association of territorial jurisdictions 
seems more desirable than merely as a contracted party.
However, lots of peoples have looked at the iso3166-1 problem and the 
gTLD opportunities, and concluded that one resolves in a decade or so 
at known cost, the other is less well bounded.
With that distraction set aside, how is a Latin script string 
confusingly similar to an Arabic script string?
I agree with the conclusions, the two strings are not confusingly 
similar (or similar at all), and as a single applicant with two 
applications, one in Latin and one in a non-Latin script, the right 
evaluation process should not involve process-to-failure followed by 
some heroic measures to correct a latent general defect in the 
evaluation system.
Eric