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

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

Eric,

The two strings have the same meaning; therefore, because semantic similarity 
is included in the DAG regarding the definition of confusingly similar, they 
would be "confusingly similar".

A representative from the Arab League specifically stated at the IGF that they 
wanted a .arabl gTLD.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:01 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Stéphane Van Gelder; Edmon Chung; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across 
> different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 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
> 
>