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

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

Adrian,

I honestly was not advocating anything when I shared the 1591 explanation. It 
just seemed like the place to start in answering Tim's question.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 6:17 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> That may be so Chuck but there is a precedent for competition 
> here in the introduction of .biz? Unless there is an RFC that 
> says it means something other than business. This from Wikipedia;
> 
> "The term "business" has at least three usages, depending on 
> the scope - the singular usage (above) to mean a particular 
> company or corporation, the generalized usage to refer to a 
> particular market sector, such as "the music business" and 
> compound forms such as agribusiness, or the broadest meaning 
> to include all activity by the community of suppliers of 
> goods and services. However, the exact definition of 
> business, like much else in the philosophy of business, is a 
> matter of debate."
> 
> Sounds a lot like RFC 1591 to me.
> 
> If you allow TLD's of similar meanings for competition then 
> you have to do so across IDN's also.
> 
> If V$ takes this approach it makes a mockery of the process.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Saturday, 5 December 2009 9:58 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> 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
> > >>>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>