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

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

The detail supporting recommendation 2 clearly defines confusingly similar in 
the broader sense and that detail is part of the report that was approved by a 
super majority vote.

Also, please note that this does not only affect incumbents but also new gTLD 
operators that want to apply for various versions of their TLD, like the 
example I cited yesterday for .arab.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:36 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across 
> different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Actually that is not the way I remember it.  I remember it as 
> an issue that went without full resolution and as one of the 
> issue that was punted to the staff to figure out - though 
> were those on both sides of the argument the whole time.  I 
> do not think you can produce a document  or a decision that 
> defines confusingly similar the way want to define it.  You 
> always insisted on Confusing similar meaning all possible 
> forms of similarity, but there never as a consensus call on 
> that topic to my recollection.  I was not alone in objecting 
> to such an expansion of the term confusingly similar - there 
> was much discussion but no conclusion.
> 
> It is expansive in that if gives incumbent rights in all 
> languages and scripts that no one ever intended to give them, 
> especially if you combine it with the current drive to give 
> access to names to the incumbents because when given to 
> incumbents they are allegedly no longer confusingly similar.
> 
> But it is not only expansive in that respect because there 
> are many words in many languages that are synonyms and there 
> are many that are homonyms, depending on how you pronounce 
> them.  Giving incumbents the ability to block all of those or 
> claim them as is their wish, is problematic.  Again I am 
> speaking personally, but I will take the case to the SG.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 4 Dec 2009, at 14:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>