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

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

Eric,

We have already been down the path of the definition of confusingly similar.  
What is in the DAG now had strong support.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:29 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]
> 
> That makes it (a) a good example of why "meaning" creates 
> avoidable problems, as the two wouldn't form a contention set 
> if visual similarity was the test, and (b) not a hypothetical 
> iso3166-1 maybe, but an actual gTLD IDN example, though when 
> of course is TBD.
> 
> Thank you Tim. If all applications are considered 
> independently, than if both strings resulted in independent 
> contract formation, though with the same parties, then they 
> would be severable, as they never really are joined.
> 
> That's another reason why it pays to know (interdependency, 
> such as same applicant) rather than not.
> 
> Eric
>