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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Their policy processes is different. e.g.  because they pay fees only 
voluntarily can gTLDs go with the voluntary non contract approach?  will gTLDs 
have to prove that the name in non controversial among government and national 
service providers? the policies are different and you cannot piggy back from 
one to the other - history has shown us that in no uncertain terms.

Can either of you show where the council discussed this issue and can to any 
conclusion to back up your argument about intent?

I know many people who would have screamed blue murder if they had thought the 
council was going in this direction but people who wanted this were very quiet 
about it if they spoke of it at all.  I remember almost all of the 
conversations, even if i don't remember in gory detail, and i do not remember 
any discussion of this intent.

So who has proof of this intent?

a.



On 14 Apr 2010, at 19:27, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>