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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

it all depends.  
.museu (Catalan) might be confusing, but 
whether 

.musée (French),
 מוזיאון (Hebrew - really a transliteration) or 
박물관 or 기념관 or 미술관 or 자료관 (variations in Korean provided by Google translate) 

are, is more difficult to answer.

As I said before, I think these are matters for extended evaluation.  Though, 
it does not seem that there is extended evaluation for failing the string 
similarity test. But I may be wrong as I have not studied DAGv3 with an 
applicant's eye yet.

I also think it is fine to open up a policy discussion on this issue because i 
do agree that we know a lot more now about how complicated it can become then 
we knew back then (and it is a mighty interesting topic).  But, if we open it 
up for discussion, I think we need to open up the entire kettle of fish for 
inspection and that may introduce dreaded delay.

I also think it is fine to leave this alone for round 1, see how the mechanism 
works and use the second round as a way to fix things (the council's intent if 
i remember correctly) and allow those who want multiple 
strings-that-fail-similarity-but-are-under-the-same-registry to apply for them 
in batches.

a.



On 14 Apr 2010, at 17:01, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Let me ask my question in a different way.
> 
> If MuseDoma applied for an IDN version of .museum, it seems to me that
> it is possible that it could be disallowed because it could be
> confusingly similar to the existing .museum gTLD.  I definitely do not
> think that was the intent of the GNSO recommendation.  Similarly, if a
> new gTLD applicant applied for an LDH gTLD and an IDN version of that
> same LDH gTLD, I believe that the IDN version should not be disallowed
> because of the confusingly similar restriction (recommendation 2).
> 
> Do you agree with my reasoning on the above?
> 
> Chuck