RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam
- To: <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 14:20:56 +1000
Please use the new gTLD committee mailing list for discussion.
> I am not sure if the definition of "confusingly similar"
> provided here is clear enough to avoid contentious
> interpretations, and if it totally reflects the discussions
> in Amsterdam. To my recollection, at the end of the
> discussions there was a widely shared opinion that we should
> restrain the confusion criterion to typo-confusion (i.e., in
> what the user can see and what s/he can imply from it).
"typo" confusion - is more related to the use of particular keyboards
where it is easy to make a mistake in typing. E.g mistyping "n" for
"m". Ie "tonkim" instead of "tonkin"
Other forms of confusion can be more visual.
E.g example and examp1e are not mis-typings. The "l" and the "1" are
in very different parts of a keyboard.
I prefer the more general "confusingly similar" as this has precedence
with use in distinguishing trademarks and there is some experience in
the community. I don't believe that ICANN should be "re-inventing the
wheel" but taking advantage of similar established processes developed
over many years where possible. Remember that it is likely that we
will have internationalised domain names and the chances of strings
looking "confusingly" similar are increased.
Ultimately we will learn more through some case history once the initial
round is complete.
Not also that any contentious situations will be referred to an expert
panel with hopefully some diversity of expertise as well as experience.
Perhaps you can give some examples where you think the term "confusingly
similar" may give rise to undesirable outcomes?