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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think that remains to be seen how extensive the support is for this expansive 
notion of confusingly similar.

I think this is an unfortunate change in the DAG and do not believe it was ever 
intended by the GNSO though it was argued by some.  I also believe it will 
cause great difficulties.

a.

On 4 Dec 2009, at 00:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
>