RE: [council] Re: [gtld-council] Outcome of discussion on string checks on Wed 30 Aug in Amsterdam

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce,

thanks for the clarification, and indeed, I confirm that beyond the
notion of "typo-confusion" I actually implied "visual confusion". I'm
not sure we really need to address the fact that a user could type a
key instead of another one that is in the same area on the keyboard.
That micro-management approach would lead us really too far,
considering each letter that already appears in existing gTLD (and in
others to come), and the characters that surround it on the QWERTY,
the AZERTY, the QWERTZ, etc. keyboards???

So yes, correcting myself, I was thinking to "visually confusing", or
as Ross proposed "typographically similar". 

> I prefer the more general "confusingly similar" as this has
> precedence with use in distinguishing trademarks and there is some
> experience in the community

That's not really the point, but as you said yourself later on in
your reply to Ross, rather: 

> I think the point was that the term may be "broadly" understood.  >
Of course different legal frameworks probably have different
> interpretations.

"Broadly understood" also leads to misinterpretations as we all know
from the Council experience. Then the questions are: is the practice
(or "precedence") you're referring to - which is related to
trademarks - fully valid for domain names? and has that practice
produced any clear definition (understanding and agreement in the
community) as to what is "confusingly similar"? If there is such a
thing, then we need to restate it in our final document so that it's
clear what we're referring to. But if the answer to any of those
questions is "no", then ICANN should be allowed to "re-invente the
wheel" here, or rather, this is not exactly about "re-inventing the
wheel" (using your words), but about making a relevant policy where
there was lack of policy. 

In conclusion, I agree with you when you write:

"We are essentially dealing with a security issue that results when
strings look sufficiently similar to cause significant confusion
amongst the general public - mainly from a visual perspective.   If
there is another way of wording this then please suggest appropriate
wording."

and would support any additional texts that could help clarify
whatever needs to be clarified.

Mawaki    



--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello Mawaki,
> 
> Please use the new gTLD committee mailing list for discussion.
> (gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
> 
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>