ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:22:08 -0400

Thanks for the reply Avri.

I don't think that delay of the overall process is an option.  At the same 
time, I believe that a simple clarifying statement from the GNSO Council could 
be crafted on this issue.  It could be something along the lines of the 
following: "Recommendation 2 of the GNSO new gTLD recommendations (restriction 
of confusingly similar new gTLDs) was not intended to prevent an applicant from 
applying for multiple IDN versions of the same gTLD, whether that gTLD is an 
existing gTLD or a new gTLD."  I strongly believe that that is an accurate 
statement regardless of how one defines confusingly similar.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:32 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy