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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I don't know if it is reasonable to assume that every registry will
offer these 'non-contention-set-of-generally-similar-gTLDs' in the same
way.  Some may do so in a way that is along the lines of aliasing;
others may take a different approach. Isn't this something that should
be left to the market and thereby maximizing the potential for
innovation that will hopefully benefit the end users?  The common
denominator in my mind is that the set of gTLDs would all represent
reasonable forms of the same primary gTLD, thereby minimizing confusion
(in my opinion) for users. 

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 2:26 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
>