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

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

Please see below Avri.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:44 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: same string registered at 2nd level across 
> different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> 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.

I never said it was. But in cases where there may be the chance of confusion, 
the opportunity is provided to object.

That is not the issue we are talking about on this list.  We are talking about 
whether an applicant can apply for a variation of an existing or other proposed 
string without that application being ruled out by recommendation 2, the 
confusing similarity restriction. The bottom line is that recommendation 2 
should not be used to exclude a string where the probability of confusion does 
not exist, even if it is similar in some way.

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