RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details

["Tina Dam" <tina.dam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe this helps:

.com in Latin looks awfully like .com (with Greek o) and there are tons of
examples like that. Take a look in Unicode.

The root server will see the difference because the punycode version is
different because the Latin o and Greek o has different code points. For the
user though it looks similar. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:59 PM
> To: olof nordling; chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details
> 
> Hi Olof,
> 
> Basically, it looks to me as either you are in violent 
> agreement with Chun (then there might be some changes to the 
> para./statement he's referring to,) or you're missing the 
> point, (or again, I'm lost.) Your example refers to the "same 
> script" (wether it's ASCII based or
> else) whereby "confusingly similar" makes some sense. The 
> point Chun was making, as I've understood it, was that there 
> is a problem applying the notion "confusingly similar" in 
> cross-script situation ("different languages", "different 
> language script labels," etc.)
> 
> In other words, does it make any sense to assume that a new 
> non-ASCII, IDN gTLD might be "confusingly similar" to an 
> existing ASCII gTLD. If you (anyone) think so, then how and 
> to whom? To the DNS server? to some users? If not, then are 
> we talking about an IDN gTLD (string) in one script being 
> possibly "confusingly similar" to another IDN gTLD (string) 
> in another script? And then again, at what
> level: root server? user visual experience? and in the 
> latter, to what extent do we expect the users of different 
> languages and scripts to be the same, etc.? Ultimately, the 
> rationale and relevance of this notion may need to be 
> reconsidered and clarified in the IDN context, and if 
> relevant, grounded in the IDN space as well as it may be the 
> case in the traditional TLD space. 
> 
> Or have I wholly missed the point?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> --- olof nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Chun,
> > 
> > Thanks for your comments! One clarifying point, hopefully, would be 
> > that the "confusingly similar" test (as conceived in the new gTLD
> > recommendations)
> > would be applicable to concurrent applications for gTLD strings.
> > Accordingly
> > (by way of example in ASCII), if an application for a 
> string ".tuvw" 
> > is received and another application (in the same script) is 
> received 
> > for ".tuVw", where v and V symbolize variants (again for 
> the sake of 
> > example only), they would be considered "confusingly 
> similar" in the 
> > string tests and be handled in accordance with a specific procedure 
> > foreseen.
> > Hence the
> > statement you refer to.
> > 
> > Very best regards
> > 
> > Olof
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >   _____
> > 
> > From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chun Eung Hwi
> > Sent: den 6 februari 2007 19:59
> > To: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] One comment on techno-policy details
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I couldn't catch up the recent debates, but I want to make quick 
> > comment on one issue of "limit confusion caused by 
> variants", which I 
> > could read from conference call 23 January overview - 2.2 
> as follows;
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 2.2 Agreement to limit confusion and collisions due to variants.
> > Agreement
> > that this may be a stability and security issue and part of the 
> > reserved name process. Agreement that variants of an IDN 
> gTLD string 
> > be treated in analogy with current practice for IDN SLD 
> labels, i.e. 
> > variants are not available for registration by others. 
> Agreement that 
> > this approach implies certain "ex ante rights" with similarities to 
> > the "confusingly similar" test foreseen in the New gTLD 
> > recommendations. Agreement that such "rights" must not be 
> confounded 
> > with IPR rights as such. Some support for enabling a choice 
> for an IDN 
> > gTLD strings with variants to only block variants or to use 
> variants 
> > as aliasing.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > What I want to clarify here is the fact that variants come from the 
> > same language or the same language family. Therefore, the 
> confusion or 
> > collision happen in the same language or within the same language 
> > family as well. We cannot use the term of variant in case when some 
> > translated or transliterated or phonetically same or similar words 
> > (language script
> > labels) are to be taken into account. And obviously, in different 
> > languages or in different language families, there is no longer 
> > confusion or collision even when those  in respective language are 
> > similar or the same in graphics, semantics and sound 
> because different 
> > language scripts must be distinctive itself. So, in this case, 
> > "confusingly similar" test cannot be applied.
> > Accordingly, across different language script labels, there 
> should not 
> > be any "ex ante rights" of the existing TLD label, and so 
> any reserved 
> > name policy would not necessarily be designed.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > regards,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Chun
> > 
> > --
> > ---------------------
> > Chun Eung Hwi
> > General Secretary, PeaceNet Korea
> > chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > pcs (+82) 19-259-2667
> > fax (+82)  2-2649-2624
> > 
> > 
>