RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
- To: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:16:50 -0500
Makes sense to me Eric.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:15 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Avri Doria; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] 3rd Draft on Sting Similarity
> Avri first used the phrase "lowest common denominator" in
> this context. She gets the "probably didn't teach schools
> maths" prize.
> I take your point that ease of measurement isn't the only
> possible standard, and it may be, as attractive as
> "objectivity" is, better, or even usable.
> Seriously, if the sword thing were useful it wouldn't be
> telling us that "cym" and "com" are confusing, as that
> reduces to two consonants separated by a vowel, which isn't
> terribly useful, though wicked efficient and objective.
> But what are we really bringing to the Council's broader membership?
> First, that the probability of confusion rule still has areas
> of surprising (non)applicability, and second, the
> independence of applications, from each other and from any
> pre-existing registry assumption, results in incorrect
> outcomes, for which additional steps to correct are required.
> The first shows up with IDNs, and the second shows up with
> IDNs and generally.