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

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

Avri,

There is nothing expansive about the definition of confusingly similar in the 
DAG or in what I have been proposing. I am aware that you were one individual 
who did not support it at the time but a supermajority of the Council supported 
the recommendations including the detailed explanations behind them.  What do 
you see as expansive?

Chuck

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:48 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across 
> different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> 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
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
>