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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems like it may be best to organize a conference call to discuss this
matter before taking further steps?...
I wonder if Glen or anyone from staff can help us setup a call sometime
hopefully in the first half of next week to see if we can go over this item
in a more interactive format.


Edmon




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:22 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> 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