RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity

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

I am fine with Tim's added statement.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:15 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> 
> I'm okay with either version (Eric's last, or Chucks current 
> draft), with one request. That it state that our intent is 
> not to redefine or revisit the definition of "confusingly 
> similar" as currently implented in DAGv3, but only to point 
> out two problems that may arise based on how the test for 
> "confusingly similar" is applied. Or something like that.
> 
> Tim
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, December 15, 2009 8:23 am
> To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Avri,
> 
> What in my rewrite assumes that translation is the primary 
> cause for 'confusingly similar'? 
> 
> I disagree with you that we all agree that visual similarity 
> as the lowest common denominator. I agree that it is one 
> important possible source of similarity and the one that 
> initial checks will look for but it is only one of several 
> sources of similarity. That doesn't necessarily make it the 
> lowest common denominator. 
> 
> I have not problem with adding other types of examples. Note 
> that I didn't add any examples but only used those that were 
> already included.
> If we want to add some more examples of different types, that 
> is fine with me.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:37 AM
> > To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> > 
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > My problem with your re-write is that it presupposes that 
> translation 
> > is a primary cause for 'confusingly similar' and as I and 
> others have 
> > argued, this is not universally accepted (though I do 
> accept meaning 
> > as a possible complicating factor in an objection, I am not sure 
> > others even go that far).
> > 
> > 
> > If we are going to include examples we should include example of 
> > 'beneficial similarity' based on the lowest common denominator 
> > condition of visual similarity with which we all agree. 
> Something with 
> > the variation in Chinese or simplified or perhaps something 
> even from 
> > LDH/extended ASCII (.aero/.æro), or even a cyrillic/LDH example 
> > (.сом/.com)
> > 
> > a.
> > 
> > On 14 Dec 2009, at 16:34, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > 
> > > Please accept my apologies for not being able to do this
> > earlier but
> > > my time has been spread really thin. I made a lot of
> > proposed edits
> > > and inserted quite a few comments that are all highlighted in the 
> > > attached file. I started doing this late last week and since then 
> > > there has been been a lot of list discussion, so I tried to
> > check my
> > > edits against recent comments but found that somewhat
> > challenging. In
> > > some cases I think my edits were consistent with some of the 
> > > suggestions but in others they may not be.
> > > 
> > > Chuck
> > > 
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > >> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> > >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:22 AM
> > >> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Thanks Eric. I'm good with it.
> > >> 
> > >> Tim
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > > <IDNG Message to Council re confusingly similar strings - Gomes 
> > > version.doc>
> > 
> > 
> >
> 
>