Re: [gnso-idng] Draft on String Similarity

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Eric.

I have a (rather crude) initial reaction: this email is way too long!

If you want anyone on the Council to actually take the time to sink their teeth 
into this, I suggest we find a way to cut this down a lot. Otherwise, the 
expertise that has gone into drafting this message to Council will be lost on 
the people we are hoping will read it.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 11 déc. 2009 à 15:11, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :

> 
> Councilors,
> 
> During the past weeks the participants in the gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx mailing 
> list (IDNG) have discussed, on the mailing list and in conference calls, 
> aspects of the situation which exists following the Board's vote at Seoul.
> 
> One area of discussion which raises a policy issue is confusingly similar 
> strings. Because this seems an area where the obvious right thing has already 
> been done we need to draw attention to two aspects which have been overlooked.
> 
> First, the current meaning of "similar" is now broader than "visual 
> similarity", and appears to include "meaning".
> 
> Second, the underlying assumption in the evaluation process is that each 
> evaluation is independent of all other evaluations.
> 
> These, a rule (about a string in an application) and a meta-rule (about all 
> applications), have a consequence which we suggest is not desirable.
> 
> In the following example we use "china" and "中国" (chung guo), simply as a 
> well-known example of two strings. We ignore that both are part of the 
> universe of strings more likely to pertain to ccTLD and their policy body 
> than the GNSO, for the purpose of illustrating the policy problem.
> 
> The string "china" and "中国" (chung guo) are "similar" in meaning, therefor 
> they form a contention set. Under the current rules in DAGv3, only one 
> application who's string is a member of a contention set may proceed towards 
> delegation. Whether the choice is by order of creation, or amongst 
> contemporaries, by community evaluation and/or auction, the result is the 
> same. One member of an (extended, in the sense of including existing 
> registries) contention set thrives. All others fail.
> 
> This is the proper and correct end, except for one case which is more likely 
> to exist for applications for IDN strings than for restricted ASCII (letters, 
> digits, hyphen) strings. That case is where two, or more, applications for 
> similar strings are advanced by a single applicant, or two or more 
> cooperating applicants.
> 
> Returning to our "china" and "中国" (chung guo) example, if XYZ Co. applied for 
> both "china" (application #1) and "中国" (application #2),
> the current rules can not allow both strings to exist in the root, though 
> both are brought by the same applicant.
> 
> The fundamental rational is that confusion is harmful. This rational is not 
> universally correct. There are instances where confusion results in no harm, 
> and more importantly, where "confusion" creates benefit.
> 
> Because "beneficial confusion" is not obvious to users of Latin Script, an 
> example, we offer the original example of cooperation among "applicants" to 
> benefit their registrants and users, through "similarity".
> 
> In 2001, the registries for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao discussed 
> cooperation so that mixing of Simplified Chinese, prevalent in China, and 
> Traditional Chinese, prevalent in Taiwan, but interchangeable without loss of 
> meaning, would not result in user confusion. These "applicants" cooperated to 
> create "beneficial confusion", so that "similar strings" actually had similar 
> meaning, that is, resolved as expected by their user community.
> 
> No user "confusion" resulted from this multi-applicant cooperation, except 
> perhaps in Marina del Rey.
> 
> Coordination to create "beneficial confusion" may exist where one applicant 
> submits two or more applications, as in the "china" and "中 国" (chung guo) 
> example, or where two or more applicants submit two or more applications, as 
> the four cooperating Chinese registries did, almost a decade ago.
> 
> It is possible that applicants for two or more similar strings could, upon 
> failure, resort to extended evaluation, where the cause of the failure is 
> similarity with an existing TLD. Present registries seeking similar IDN 
> delegations could simply cost in the extended evaluation cost as part of the 
> application cost. This is inelegant, but not fatally so.
> 
> Unfortunately, for applicants simply seeking two or more delegations with 
> similar meaning, independent of script, as in the "china" and "中 国" (chung 
> guo) example, initial evaluation failure and extended evaluation are not 
> available. The contention set consisting of two strings and one actual 
> applicant go to auction, with absurd outcome from the business perspective, 
> and tragic outcome from the language perspective, as one script choice 
> eliminates all others, for some meaning defined construction of "similarity".
> 
> We suggest the Council consider the following to cure this defect.
> 
> 1. that the meta-rule that all applications are independently evaluated be 
> modified so that cooperating applications may, if the contention set they 
> form contains no non-cooperating applications, proceed in the evaluation 
> process.
> 
> 2. that the rule that applications for strings which are "confusingly 
> similar" to existing registries, where the application is brought by the 
> existing registry to which "confusing similarity" exists, be modified so that 
> these applications do not fail the initial evaluation and require extended 
> evaluation, or some other heroic measure.
> 
> Both of these recommendations have generalizations.
> 
> The independent applications presumption overlooks the certainty that the 
> legacy operator and application authors of 2000 and 2003-2006, and new 
> authors, will each author multiple 2010 applications, some of which have 
> common characteristics, such as "similarity" and "cooperation", and absent a 
> mechanism to "signal" the similarity to the evaluation process, adverse 
> outcomes and process inefficiencies are certain.
> 
> A property common to two or more applications should be discoverable by the 
> evaluation process, especially when the applicants desire this common 
> property to be known to the evaluation process.
> 
> The presumption of user confusion and harm where similarity exists overlooks 
> the utility of similarity, and more profoundly, substitutes a Marina del Rey 
> centric meaning and utility test for the meanings and uses that exist at 
> large.
> 
> Correct use by two or more applications, that is, a property common to only 
> the strings sought by two or more applications, can, and should be 
> discoverable by the evaluation process.
> 
> The Council need not necessarily look to the generalizations of the 
> modifications of rule and meta-rule we suggest to cure the anticipated 
> problem of similar strings in IDN applications, but should it do so, the IDNG 
> participants are prepared to further inform the Council.
> 
> As it stands, the IDNG participants now understand the unintended effect of 
> the "similarity" rule, and the "independent application" meta-rule, to be 
> that only one of the six UN languages may be used for any identifier in the 
> root, with adverse consequences for cooperation and harmonization of 
> operational practice and user expectations.
> 
> The IDNG participants thank the Council for its time and attention 
> considering the its initial work product.
> 
> 
> This ends the draft. Chuck, Edmond, Avri, edit to your heart's content.
> 
> Eric
> 
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature