On examples [was: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity]
- To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: On examples [was: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity]
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:20:18 -0500
On 12/15/09 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
... non controversial examples can be constructed.
Ignoring everything else in this thread, the first example is
well-known. We expect that some entity, possibly the Chinese State,
has an interest in "中国" (chung guo) in the IANA root, and possibly
other strings in other scripts, e.g., "cn" and even "china".
However, it has the problem that it may for some make the locus of the
issue in state politics, or GAC principles, not labels.
The second example was "duck", which is a single character, and I
didn't want to use an example with less than two characters, as that
is another area where the locus is on label length, not the example
sought here, so I made it "duck soup" and, via Google's language tool,
the translation "鸭汤" (yā tāng).
This has the disadvantage of being an example of "meaning", yet this
was the greatest concern I am aware of, off-list and on-list.
I didn't make an example of transliteration, which I understand is a
real interest, nor other kinds of non-glyph similarity.
A concern I have using the SC/TC equivalence as an example is this.
A problem with using SC/TC, is that as an example (a) it is "solved"
by rfc4713, and (b) the solution causes people to overlook the scope
of cooperation the CDNC members were contemplating in 2001.
Fully symmetric cross registration so that DUCK-SOUP anywhere ment
that duck-SOUP and duck-soup and DUCK-soup went to the same site.
The closest thing I've seen contemplated that compares to the scope of
cooperation and focus on registrant benefit and prevention of abusive
registration is the marks registry, with an as yet undiscovered
revenue sharing agreement across the participating registries.
Anyway, that is why I mentioned the CDNC cooperation to create
beneficial "confusion", but didn't use a SC/TC equivalence to give an
example of beneficial "confusion". Because it seems to mean bundling,
not inter-operator cooperation.
Avri's offered two examples, LDH/extended ASCII (.aero/.æro), and
My only point here is about the use of examples. They are meant to be
interpreted, and that has drawbacks as well as advantages.