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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Dear Chuck,

If the argument is written, it should be somewhere - give us the url.  Please 
point me to the document where the quotes are quoted and the argument is made.  
i will review and send my questions back based on my understanding of what the 
written words in the GNSO recommendation say and mean.

Please do not treat me like an idiot who disagrees with you just to waste your 
time. And please do not get impatient with me I do not believe you have made 
the argument you believe you made.  I have heard you claim its truth and i 
believe you believe it,  but have not seen proof either logical or factual. Yes 
i have heard you speak on it, but i have never seen a written chapter and verse 
of what you are saying.  

Once we know what exact lines you base your argument on with an explanation of 
how you interpret them, then we can get into exegesis and real discussion.    
And once you have it written , then you will be able to point to it for all 
time as the expression of your argument in a discussion that is not likely to 
stop for a long time.    

Once you have it written either you will convince me and others that your 
interpretation is correct or I will write my commentary on your arguments and 
the discussion will go on at a deeper level.

a.

On 16 Apr 2010, at 17:40, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>