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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not know why there is a question on whether someone reports on this to the 
council.

I would like to add that for the most part I think the discussions we have been 
having are relevant to the designated subject - should there be an IDN gTLD 
Fast Track?

We have bought up some very large differences on some of the contributing 
issues and starting assumptions, but these all have some effect on the choices 
one would make on whether there should be such a IDN gTLD fast track and if 
there were to be such a IDN GtLD fast track, what the issues  that need 
resolution are.

I would also think one would have to bring up the fact that discussions have 
pointed to some fundamental concerns with the DAG as it currently stands on the 
issue of confusing similarity and with various interpretations of what the 
council meant in its recommendations on this topic for all new gTLDS, but 
especially with regards to IDN that might be seen as 'mirroring' incumbent 
gTLDs.

I also think that at this point, one would have to report that there is no 
consensus to form such an IDNG WG, but that discussions are still ongoing.

a.


On 6 Dec 2009, at 13:52, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

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