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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have done that several times Avri in meetings where you were present.
It is disappointing that I have to use time again to repeat that
exercise but I will find some time to do so once more.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 5:08 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>