<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
- To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:46:02 -0500
Tim Ruiz wrote:
So what does .com stand for anyway? Commercial, commerce, communication,
company?
Communists. Back when it was US vs THEM (not the large ants), and we
had .MIL and .ARPA, and kremvax!chernenko was sending email, DARPA
made the decision to put all the Commies in .COM.
I'm looking forward to next April.
I'm concerned about how far, incumbents especially, intend to take this.
Will Neustar object to .business? Will VeriSign object to .shop? One of
the primary reasons that ICANN has touted new gTLDs is to increase
competition and user choice. If every possible *version* of a TLD, as
I'm seeing it described in this thread, is held by a single entity, how
does that promote competition?
It is a concern I share. The interests of the registries (contracted
with ICANN), the interests of the registry operators (not, repeat not
contracted with ICANN, e.g., CORE, and potentially include ccTLD
operators, e.g., AFNIC, and technically competent RAA registrars,
e.g., MIT), and the interests of RAA registrars, appear not to be
usefully distinguished, nor the interests of registrants, who's use is
made conditional on sorting out the interests of others problem, prior.
However, please indicate if your concern about "incumbants" includes
.coop, .museum and .cat, and any others.
Taking such an expansive view also sheds a different light on the letter
from the .SPORT PAC, dotSport LLC, and their supporters, in which they
claim rights to all sub-categories of sports attempting to establish a
new concept, the *apex* TLD. They use many of the same arguments used in
this thread to support their assertions:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baumann-to-dengate-thrush-20aug09-en.pdf
When I first heard the .sport, and therefore no .basketball, I thought
how herbicidal, suppressing all nearby growth.
The only utility I can see to an apex claim is that the applicant is
attempting to enter into a conspiracy to restrict competition, and
that is a useful tool to discriminate between applicants who present
inherent conflicts of interest with ICANN, and those who do not.
IMHO, this is kind of thinking that will derail the whole thing and/or
cascade it into never ending lawsuits.
Agree. Sherman and Clayton Acts fun and games.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN
gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, December 04, 2009 10:43 am
To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Hi,
And there I disagree. There is the basis for objection on a broader
basis then visual to some degree, but I do not see it mandating the
extent of the basis you are requiring. And the extent of the broader
basis is not strictly defined but refers to many different possibilities
under many different legal regimes. I do not believe the intent of the
council was ever to give .com, in all of its possible translations,
homonyms, synonyms and transliterations in all languages/scripts to
Verisign, or .biz in all of its possible translations, homonyms,
synonyms and transliterations in all languages/scripts to Neustar.
the ability that you are requiring:
- to exclude all others from any translation, transliteration, aural
similarity, synonym, or homonym because of Confusing similarity
+ the ability to claim those for the incumbent because it isn't
confusingly similar for you to have them
is the equivalent of preserving an incredibly wide swath of names for
the incumbents. I am certain that was not the intent of the GNSO in its
recommendations.
a.
On 4 Dec 2009, at 15:50, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|