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,

If I remember correctly, this group was put together to come up with such a 
charter.


On 3 Apr 2009, at 00:27, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> As discussed during the Council call last week, an IDN gTLD Fast Track 
> Drafting Team  drafting team mailing list has been created.


On 3 Apr 2009, at 14:04, Edmon Chung wrote:

> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to discuss this topic, which I personally think 
> should be a meaningful project for the ICANN community.
> 
> Wanted to start off by considering the scope we would like to have for this 
> particular drafting team. Here are my initial thoughts:
> 
> 1. Focused on IDN gTLD Fast Track -- the discussion should conceptually be 
> following from the recent resolution on the timing of the introduction of IDN 
> ccTLD and IDN gTLD and the consistent position we have maintained regarding 
> the issue
> 
> 2. Not intended to resolve all the implementation issues -- it may be useful 
> to consider some of the implementation issues so that we know what items 
> should be discussed in the IDNG WG if it is formed, however the actual 
> discussions I think should take place once the IDNG WG is formed rather than 
> at this drafting team
> 
> 3. Depending on existing policy recommendations -- all discussions here and 
> in the IDNG WG if it is formed should depend on existing policy 
> recommendations, including the GNSO IDN WG final outcomes report and the GNSO 
> new gTLD recommendations, which means that no policy development should be 
> required
> 
> 4. Council Motion for the formation of an IDNG WG -- in my mind, the outcome, 
> if any, of this drafting team would be a proposed motion for the council to 
> consider in terms of requesting the board to form an IDNG WG, much like the 
> IDNC WG which was formed to develop the IDN ccTLD Fast Track
> 
> 5. Draft Charter of IDNG WG -- this would be another outcome from this 
> drafting team.  Again, in my mind, I think it should make sense to follow the 
> footsteps of the IDNC WG.  What we would need to develop, would be a set of 
> basic principles, scope and timeline for the IDNG WG, much like that for the 
> IDNC WG charter (see: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm).
> 
> The question of whether an IDNG WG should be formed I think may actually be 
> better discussed through the consideration of 4&5 above.  The discussions for 
> which and whether we could come to consensus around them would essentially 
> reveal the answer to that question.
> 
> What do people think about the above for a starting point?

It was put on hold while the JIG effort became the focus.

with JIG being more of less a reality, and the fact that IDNccTLDs were going 
to precede any new gTLD including IDNgTLDS into the root by at least 6 months 
if not more, the conversations on this effort started up again.


On 20 Nov 2009, at 04:31, Edmon Chung wrote:

> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> As mentioned in the wrap up session in Seoul, would like to restart this 
> conversation.
> 
> I think it has now become somewhat apparent that the full new gTLD process 
> will be delayed for a while and that there will be a good gap between when we 
> will see IDN ccTLDs and when we might see IDN gTLDs (especially if we do not 
> do something about it).  Furthermore, there has been growing discussion / 
> interest in having separate "tracks" for certain "categories".  So it seems 
> to me that the time for this discussion for IDN gTLDs is becoming mature...
> 
> Anyway, the basic situation, based on my observation, perhaps could be 
> described as follows:
> - there is definite interest in having IDN gTLDs as soon as possible
> - there is user expectation (among other reasons) that as IDN ccTLDs are 
> available IDN gTLDs also work
> - IDN gTLDs, like IDN ccTLDs are new TLDs, as new gTLDs, the same overarching 
> issues (not resolved for the full process) may apply
> - Full IDN experience (i.e. including the TLD) is important for users and the 
> adoption of IDN
> - IDN TLD is an important undertaking for ICANN in promoting multilingualism 
> and IDN gTLDs should be one of the priorities of ICANN work
> - From the press coverage received (and the great enthusiasm and discussions 
> at the IGF) regarding the release of IDN ccTLDs, there is public demand (or 
> at least interest) on having IDN TLDs
> 
> Based on the above, I can think of 2 possible options or tracks:
> 
> 1. to break out the discussion focused on IDN gTLDs and address the 
> overarching issues specifically for the introduction of IDN gTLDs
> - open the application process for all IDN gTLD strings
> - identify the relevant issues and propose a solution focused on IDN gTLDs
> - work in parallel with the full new gTLD process (or other tracks for that 
> matter) and bring about a process independent of the full new gTLD process 
> discussion (i.e. may happen to be completed sooner than, at the same time, or 
> later than the full new gTLD process)
> 
> 2. to have a special track for IDN gTLDs that would "mirror" existing gTLDs
> - existing gTLDs will apply and commit to essentially run the same zonefile 
> (or offer the same name for registration to the existing registrant) as the 
> IDN gTLD, providing full IDN experience for gTLDs
> - existing gTLDs will have to apply through a process and be subjected to 
> objections
> - objections can be raised by potential applicants for the same name (or a 
> similar name forming a contention set with the applied for IDN gTLD)
> - where objection arise, the IDN gTLD string will be submitted for evaluation 
> on whether it is confusingly similar to the existing ASCII gTLD
> - if it is determined to be confusingly similar, then the application stands; 
> if it is determined to be NOT confusingly similar, then the application is 
> punted to 1. above or the full new gTLD process
> - IDN gTLDs can be added to existing gTLD contracts
> 
> The 2 options need not be mutually exclusive.  In fact, Option 2 may actually 
> be good as an ongoing process (after the new round of gTLDs and as they 
> become interested in augmenting their ASCII gTLD with an accompanying IDN 
> gTLD, and as new languages are added for any gTLD for that matter).
> 
> These are probably not the only options, but just want to get this discussion 
> started again :-)... and of course there is option 3 which is do nothing for 
> IDN gTLDs.
> 
> Looking forward to your thoughts.
> 
> Edmon
> 


a.
 


On 7 Dec 2009, at 06:15, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

> 
> After my searching I cannot find the motion nor final charter although I was 
> sure we had... apologies if this is the case.
> 
> I guess it is a little weird to have formed a working group with no confirmed 
> specific purpose or charter...?
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, 6 December 2009 2:18 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]
> 
> 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
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>