Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
I don't see a problem with doing what Adrian is suggesting which is, if I understand correctly, letting the Council know what discussions are taking place in this group. Perhaps Edmon could do that if he has planned to make a report on the group's activities at the next Council meeting... I understand Adrian's worry that the group may be getting off-track from its initial mandate to look at the possibility of an IDN fast track, but I have to say I have learned a lot in the last few days from the discussions going on and found them to be very interesting. Thanks, Stéphane Le 5 déc. 2009 à 16:18, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : > > Note that this is a draft charter that I don't think even this group ever > agreed on. If I am incorrect on this, please correct me. > > Chuck > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 7:06 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] >> >> Given that the conversation has progressed. I have a protocol >> question to ask. >> >> If we had to have a motion to accept the charter for the >> Working Group (which was clearly termed the "IDN gTLD Fast >> Track Working Group (IDNG WG)") is it appropriate to continue >> discussions without going back to the council? It seems that >> the most recent discussion are well outside the original >> scope of the Charter. >> >> I have attached the most recent version of the Charter I could find. >> >> To me, just as a matter of protocol, shouldn't we go back to >> the Council and tell them of our findings (or lack thereof) >> and potentially suggest a new charter? Given the work >> prioritisation shouldn't the Council decide what WG's are 'in play'? >> >> Once again, I stress, I am not against the discussion taking >> place. I think it is valuable. It is actually for this reason >> that I think it needs to be brought to the broader council's >> attention. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Adrian Kinderis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Saturday, 5 December 2009 10:21 AM >> To: Adrian Kinderis; 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] >> >> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|