Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Revised Proposals Chart Based on Today's Meeting

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 16 maj 2007, at 23.39, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> am glad to hear you say that most reputable registration providers  
> are willing to have this discussion.  Let’s get it on the calendar  
> for San Juan.  Do you think it reasonable to have a workshop to  
> discuss the issues publicly?

I think a workshop could be useful, but only if it includes all sides  
of the issue.  I.e. it needs to include experts in protecting the  
commons, as well as people who can speak with authority on some of  
the adverse effects of stringent a-priori defense against  
typosquatting etc..  I would also be interested in hearing someone  
speak who can help explain how a system that is generally area  
specific , i.e. a mark only applies to a specific product area, maps  
to the online world were subject/product area boundaries become very  
fuzzy.

a.


Question and an aside:  is there a formal definition of  
typosquatting? How may degrees of freedom are allowed in the  
transform - i am sure I am using the wrong terminology - what i mean  
is what is the maximum change in a word for it to be still considered  
a typosquat?  Can the number of letters in the word change?  is Tough  
a typosquat of Tuff (assuming Tuff is marked by someone somewhere and  
leaving aside whether the term was being used by volcanists). I guess  
my question boils down to whether there is an objective  
scientifically measurable criteria of when one term is a typosquat of  
another, or is it a subjective criteria?  I know scientific work has  
been in related areas, e.g. readability of typo-laden text and am  
wondering if this work is applied to the science of typosquatting.