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

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

There is a fourth way to bring this up for the 17 Dec Council meeting: via 
questions on the GNSO Project Status List on which IDNG is one of the projects.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck 
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 9:49 AM
> To: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> Did anyone question whether there should not be a report to 
> the Council?
> 
> There are three ways to do this for the 17 Dec agenda: 1) 
> written status reports that are due by 10 Dec for 
> distribution to the Council; 2) questions and comments about 
> those status reports in the meeting; 3) AOB.
> 
> What should Edmon report?  Clearly he should report on the 
> main question that this group was formed to answer: should 
> there be a group formed to develop ideas for an IDN gTLD fast 
> track?  It appears to me that we have mixed views in that 
> regard.  Is that accurate?  If so that could be reported.  Do 
> we want to get a sense from the full Council in that regard?  
> If so, Edmon could ask for that at a future Council meeting 
> so as to give gime for Councilors to consult with their 
> repsective groups.
> 
> Edmon could also identify the other topics that we have 
> discussed and raise the question about whether those topics 
> should be pursued further and, if so, how.
> 
> Avri - what do you mean by "IDN that might be seen as 
> 'mirroring' incumbent gTLDs"?
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:45 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level 
> > across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >