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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Please show exactly in the report and in the DAG were it says what you think it 
says.  Certainly various issues are discussed, but there is no statement of a 
council decision for confusing similarity to be more the visual.  I cannot 
recall or find such a decision.  I have gone looking and do not find it.  Yet, 
you keep repeating this as if repeating will make is so without showing exactly 
where this is proven to be the case.

As for my minority statement, i merely mention a concern that people might 
start doing what you are attempting to do. As I say,  I do not find proof for 
your position in the GNSO recommendations.  ANd I do not think that an 
anticipated concern that something might be taken the wrong way can serve as 
proof of a decision to do it that way.

a.


On 16 Apr 2010, at 16:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> The report speaks for itself Avri as does the DAG in its latest version.
> I understand that you do not like that; that is why you submitted a
> minority statement.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 4:18 PM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> And that is the crux of one of our strong  differences of opinion.  
>> 
>> I believe that it was never the intent of the GNSO Council to 
>> allow 'meaning' within the category of 'confusingly similar'.  
>> 
>> In fact, I believe the GNSO decision was to restrict it to 
>> visual confusion and I believe the DAG is as well:
>> 
>> Standard for String Confusion - String confusion exists where 
>> a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is 
>> likely to deceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of 
>> confusion to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible 
>> that confusion will arise in the mind of the average, 
>> reasonable Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that 
>> the string brings another string to mind, is insufficient to 
>> find a likelihood of confusion.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:35, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>>> But 'confusing similarity' is not restricted to only visual 
>> confusion 
>>> in the GNSO recommendations.
>>> 
>>> Chuck
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:04 AM
>>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 16 Apr 2010, at 08:47, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It seems unnecessary and against the original intention.
>>>> 
>>>> and as long as 'confusing similarity'  means 'likely to 
>> cause visual 
>>>> confusion,' it won't happen and there will be no problem as was 
>>>> intended by the council.
>>>> 
>>>> a.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>