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

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

It works two ways Avri.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:54 PM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> 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.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>