Re: [gnso-idng] 2nd Draft on String Similarity

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

some initial comments.

On 13 Dec 2009, at 15:39, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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)

almost seems like it should at the beginning as a executive summary.

> 
> ===
> 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.


... is now more complex then simple "visual similarity" ...

> 
> Second, the underlying assumption in the evaluation process is that each 
> evaluation is independent of all other evaluations.

might want to add a clause at the end, ..., even if they are from the same or 
associated applicants.

> 
> 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.

not sure a meaning based example is the most useful.

> 
> 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

how about ..... therefore they may form a contention set.

> 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.


Would it have been better to have an example based on these beneficially 
confusing strings, as opposed to a translation based string confusion that 
brings up the controversial subject of whether meaning based confusion is 
significant on its own as a primary kind of confusion or as a complex factor in 
object resolution.


> 
> No user "confusion" resulted from this multi-applicant cooperation, except 
> perhaps in Marina del Rey.


last part of the phrase probably doesn't add a lot.  even if it feels good.

> 
> 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
> 
>