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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

How is that "in a nutshell" Eric? How do you take something so simple and make 
it so complicated ;). That is a talent for sure. Maybe I am just not smart 
enough.

I still think I did a good job at explaining the current issue.

I agree that we should take it to council to discuss. It seems unnecessary and 
against the original intention.

Adrian Kinderis




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Friday, 16 April 2010 6:00 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council


Chuck,

I don't think Cary's on this list, but as we've discussed this point
several times I'm certain that I can convey Cary's view.

Not only would MuseDoma be appalled if the Latin script string
"museum" being present in the IANA root precluded MuseDoma's
application for 博物馆 (Simplified Chinese) or 博物館 (Traditional
Chinese) or พิพิธภัณฑ์ (Thai) or музей (Russian) or متحف (Arabic) or ...

MuseDoma would be appalled if the Latin script string "museum" being
present in the IANA root precluded any other applicant which shared
MuseDoma's basic eligibility criteria from becoming a registry
operator for any of of these non-Latin strings.

In a nutshell, if the intent of the GNSO recommendation was to conduct
a denial of service to any but the Latin script using cultural memory
institutions, that would be very, very displeasing.

Eric

On 4/14/10 5:01 PM, 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 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:22 AM
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>