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

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

Note the definition of .com in RFC 1591:

"COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
         companies." 

Based on this it could mean commercial or company although it is not 
specifically defined as an abbreviation.

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
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>
> 
> 
>