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

["Chun Eung Hwi" <ehchun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Olof Nordling,

Thanks for your clarification!  I also know your point that "confusingly
similar" test could be applicable even in ascii gTLD case. And in that
respect, if ascii string of punycode is to be taken into account, but NOT in
its looking form of non-ascii language script, your point is very important.

Anyhow, my point that across different language scripts or different
language families, there could not be any confusion or collison at all is
still valid.


regards,

Chun




2007/2/7, olof nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>:
>  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



--
---------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet Korea
chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
pcs (+82) 19-259-2667
fax (+82)  2-2649-2624