I tend to agree. In fact, I would guess that in some cases, the name of a country in two scripts may sound identical. Alan At 12/02/2008 07:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
hi,
I understand the normal reason for consistency and am generally in favor of consistency.
I think my point, one that I am deriving from yesterday's meeting with the ccNSO, is that the universe of the ccTLD is, in some ways, different from that of the gTLDs and that this area, confusing similarity, is one that may not reasonably be subject to the same criteria.
a
On 12 Feb 2008, at 18:00, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
It makes more sense to me to respond to the ccNSO/GAC issues paper in the same way we agreed for new gTLDs. It is easy to defend consistency but often hard to defend inconsistency. Fortunately, in our paper we don't have to define 'confusingly similar' but if they came back to us for clarification we could then easily refer them to our new gTLD recommendations.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:11 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
Hi,
While it would be inconsistent with the new gTLD policy recommendations, I don't know if there is a necessity for consistency in this case as we are dealing with ccTLDs not gTLDs and we are dealing with significant expressions of a countries name or identity. So the conditions might be different.
In terms of the statement I am not sure I know what Technical confusion is any more then I really understood what confusingly similar was. Are we saying it should not be visually or homographically similar,? I also wonder if there is another problem in this one. The name of a country in various representations will be similar to the name of the country in another representation - but in a sense that seems appropriate and not a problem.
a.
On 12 Feb 2008, at 16:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
That would be inconsistent with the recommendations made for new gTLDs. We can't go back now and change what we already did.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org
] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:53 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
How about: "Strings that cause technical confusion should be avoided."
Thanks, Robin
On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 12 Feb 2008, at 14:29, Robin Gross wrote:
**** THEREFORE, I propose that we amend our statement, so that only "technical confusion" is the type of confusion that we deal with. Otherwise, not only are we in contrast with legal norms, we are also outside the scope of ICANN's authority.
Can you suggest the exact wording change you are proposing?
As with other suggested changes, I believe we can make if there are no objections. On the other hand, if there are objections, we may need to vote on this amendment before voting on the response itself.
thanks
a.
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org