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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I will certainly make time for this.,

One auxiliary question has come up and I am not sure whether we had covered 
this issue in our discussion.

On these sets of essentially-the-same-TLDs in multiple scripts/languages,  is 
there an intent that they be aliases or would it reasonable to consider them as 
separate TLDs  with a completely different set of registrants.  In other words 
are those who are in favor of allowing for such a 
non-contention-set-of-generally-similar-gTLD, considering that there would need 
to be a set of constraints on how one would need to treat these gTLDs.

I do not expect us to discus this at any length, but if there is some notion 
that this is a topic that also needs to be resolved while discussing the topic 
in general, it might be good to include it.


a.

On 14 Apr 2010, at 10:46, Edmon Chung wrote:

> 
> 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
>