[gnso-idng] 2nd Draft on String Similarity

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

2nd draft version
changes:
o shorter (Stephane)
o problem statement only, no solution(s) (Avri)
o change "china" and "中国" example to "duck soup" (Avri)
o qualifiers around "meaning" definition of "similarity" (Avri, Tim, Eric)
o pseudo-haiku summary (Stephane)

===
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 definition of "similar" is now broader than "visual 
similarity", and to some appears to include "meaning", which may be so 
broad a definition as to create more ills than it cures.
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 "duck soup" and "鸭汤" (yā tāng) as 
two strings, honoring both a network utility by way of a children's 
book and the cinematic ouvre of the Marx Brothers.
The strings "duck soup" and "鸭汤" (yā tāng) 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 "duck soup" and "鸭汤" (yā tāng) example, if XYZ Co. 
applied for both "duck soup" (application #1) and "鸭汤" (yā tāng) 
(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. Variant 
bundling and cross-registry consistency were invented to address the 
user expectation of equivalency of meaning between Simplified and 
Traditional Chinese.
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 "duck soup" and 
"鸭汤" (yā tāng) 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 "duck soup" and 
"鸭汤" (yā tāng)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".
Restated in pseudo-haiku, the problem we present to the Council is:

two strings
one meaning
one applicant
ouch!


cooperation
considered
harmfull
ouch!

The IDNG participants thank the Council for its time and attention 
considering the its initial work product.
This ends the 2nd draft. Listees, edit to your heart's content.

Eric