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

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

Tim,

I continue the discussion below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:42 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> > What would be confusingly similar about .shop? 
> > I can't see how the definition of confusingly similar in the 
> > recommendations would apply to .shop. In fact, I am not 
> even sure what 
> > TLD you think .shop would be similar to.
> 
> It all depends on how expansive the definition of confusingly 
> similar becomes, or is taken. I'm concerned that what goes 
> for IDN will go for ASCII, why not? In fact you said "It is 
> important to note that the confusingly similar issue does not 
> just relate to existing registries nor does it just relate to IDNs."

The GNSO recommendations do not make a distinction between IDNs or ASCII names 
for most of the recommendations including recommendation 2.  And I am not 
expanding the definition of confusingly similar.  It is defined in the detail 
supporting recommendation 2 in the super majority approved GNSO recommendations.

> 
> I agree, in ASCII .shop should not be considered confusing 
> with any existing gTLD. But considering some of the 
> discussion on this thread about what is confusingly similar 
> it's in the realm of possibility that since a "shop" is 
> typically a commercial business or company both VeriSign and 
> Neustar could consider it a "variant" if taken too far.

In my opinion, that would be an impossible stretch.

> 
> In IDN it becomes even more likely. The possible variants 
> claimed in a specific language by distinct applicants could 
> be the same string. For example, in how many languages does 
> "company" and "business" translate into the same word - and 
> possibly even shop (as a noun). There are other complications 
> - could the applicant of .shop claim variants based both on 
> its use as a noun and verb?

The objective is to minimize user confusion. To the extent that name variations 
create possible confusion, the goal is to not allow those.

> 
> I'm not trying to imput motives, just pointing out that the 
> definition of confusingly similar has huge implications. 
> Regardless of how well intended anyone may be, some 
> enterprising applicant will find all possible opportunities 
> to exploit it.

Exactly.  And that is my concern as well as yours, although possibly from a 
different perspective.

> 
> > I understand that some people may prefer to take advantage of the 
> > value of an already established brand but I personally do not think 
> > that is the best way to encourage competition. Do you disagree with 
> > that?
> 
> Well, actually, that happens in business all the time. But my 
> concern is that that argument gets used by incumbents or 
> applicants to push to far the other way - claiming brand 
> confusion when there really isn't any in order to stiffle competition.

Our goal is not to stifle competition but we do want to be able to protect the 
investments we have made.

>  
> Tim 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, December 04, 2009 12:51 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Tim,
> 
> There are a nearly unlimited number of strings available for 
> new gTLDs without taking advantage of an an existing brand. I 
> understand that some people may prefer to take advantage of 
> the value of an already established brand but I personally do 
> not think that is the best way to encourage competition. Do 
> you disagree with that?
> 
> What would be confusingly similar about .shop? I can't see 
> how the definition of confusingly similar in the 
> recommendations would apply to .shop. In fact, I am not even 
> sure what TLD you think .shop would be similar to.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:24 PM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across 
> > different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > 
> > 
> > So what does .com stand for anyway? Commercial, commerce, 
> > communication, company?
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > IMHO, this is kind of thinking that will derail the whole 
> thing and/or 
> > cascade it into never ending lawsuits.
> > 
> > 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
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >>
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
> 
>