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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be surprising to arrive at a completely different end than
the ccNSO on the subject of additional entries in the IANA root sought
by existing holders of two character strings.

Obviously, "china", 中国, xn--fiqs8s, and 中國, xn--fiqz9s are "similar".

Under one construction, if sought as gTLDs, only one of these could be
allowed. If sought as ccTLDs, two or more of these could be allowed.

I support asking for the clarification Chuck has suggested.

Eric



On 4/14/10 6:22 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----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
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>