Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Chuck: it is not for me to say what you understand.

And I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'same gTLD string in different 
scripts" : i.e. transliteration, translation or something i cannot imagine yet.

Since I do not believe that 'confusing similarity'  should go beyond visual and 
possibly aural similarity, i do not think we have any issue with gTLD strings 
in different script that have similar meaning - and i do not believe there is 
ever identity of meaning in translation so strings in different scripts cannot 
be confusingly similar based on meaning.

I think the issue of transliteration, since I include for the possibility of 
aural confusion,is  more complicated.

Is this what you understood me to be saying?

a.



On 14 Apr 2010, at 09:58, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Do I understand you to be saying that you believe that two different
> strings representing the same gTLD string in different scripts would be
> confusingly similar to users if offered by the same registry operator?
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:44 AM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Edmon,
>> 
>> I was not objecting to your doc, but was rather answering 
>> Mike's question:
>> 
>>>> if we have consensus to go
>>>> one step further and make a recommendation to Council, 
>> asking Council 
>>>> to ask Staff to revise the DAG to clarify that multiple 
>> 'confusingly 
>>>> similar' applications by the same applicant would not 
>> contend with one another.
>> 
>> By indicating that I do not believe we have that consensus.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Edmon Chung wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> 
>>> If you look at the document, it simply describes the 
>> problem and leave 
>>> further action to the council.
>>> 
>>> As suggested, and as you pointed out, I also do not think 
>> we arrived 
>>> at much consensus except for identifying the problem of 
>> applying for 
>>> confusingly similar TLD strings.  Which was what I am suggesting we 
>>> report back to the council.  No suggestion or charter for 
>> working group was included.
>>> 
>>> Edmon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf
>>>> Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:33 AM
>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I would not feel we had consensus on this.
>>>> 
>>>> This was just a Drafting team, and we never even came to 
>> agreement on 
>>>> a
>>> charter
>>>> for a working group let alone a policy change to the DAG.  
>> This group
>>> essentially
>>>> stalled because there was no consensus among the few 
>> people participating.
>>>> 
>>>> While there might be agreement on their being a possible problem, 
>>>> there
>>> was no
>>>> agreement on what to do about it, or even on whether 
>> anything should 
>>>> be
>>> done
>>>> about it.
>>>> 
>>>> a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 13 Apr 2010, at 21:53, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Edmon.  I am good with the draft, but wonder if we have 
>>>>> consensus
>>> to go
>>>> one step further and make a recommendation to Council, 
>> asking Council 
>>>> to
>>> ask
>>>> Staff to revise the DAG to clarify that multiple 
>> 'confusingly similar'
>>> applications by
>>>> the same applicant would not contend with one another.  I support 
>>>> that recommendation, and wonder whether there is any 
>> opposition in this group?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>>>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>>>> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
>>>>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:10 AM
>>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Given no further discussions on the 2 topics that were identified:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Application of confusingly similar TLD strings
>>>>>   - there seems to be enough agreement around this topic 
>> in general
>>>>>   - also attached clean version of the document
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. Process for the application of IDN gTLDs, including those 
>>>>> identified
>>> in 1
>>>>>   - there continues to be push back against having any dedicated
>>> process to
>>>> handle special case IDN TLD applications
>>>>> 
>>>>> And given that it seems any further discussion would require the 
>>>>> GNSO
>>> council to
>>>> consider whether an actual working group should be formed 
>> for further 
>>>> work
>>> on 1 (if
>>>> any) unless there is any particular objection, I will report the 
>>>> above
>>> back to the
>>>> council.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Edmon
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2807 - Release Date: 
>>>> 04/14/10
>>> 04:22:00
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>