RyC Confusingly Similar Statement
Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
Chuck, Thanks for posting this. Just so I am clear. "RyC believes that a key means of avoiding this problem is to allow all manifestations of a given top level domain to be managed by a single entity. This simple solution will also address the second issue: ensure that each TLD name always means the same thing." Which one(s) of the following is therefore true in the further explanation you (the RyC) have provided; a. No one, other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that looks like .com b. No one , other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that sounds like .com c. No one, other than Versign, could have a TLD (ascii ot IDN) that means the same as .com I think examples will help explain the RyC paper. Thanks and see you later today (?) Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2008 7:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
Adrian, Please accept my apologies for taking so long to respond to this. Besides being spread really thin while I was on jury duty for three weeks, I also needed to consult with RyC members to ensure that any response I gave was consistent with constituency views. I did the latter yesterday in our regular biweekly meeting. First of all it is important to emphasize that the main thrust of the RyC statement regarding the 'confusingly similar' new gTLD recommendation is that user confusion should be avoided. Also, it is critical to recognize that the statement is a constituency statement, not a VeriSign statement. I certainly participated in the development of the statement but it was truly written and ultimately approved by the full constituency. Regarding 'confusing strings' (using the latest term used by ICANN staff in their implementation work), if you read all of the information in the New gTLD Recommendations submitted to the Board, it is clear that confusion of strings could come from anyone of the three types of similarity that you cited ('looks like', 'sounds like' or 'the same as') and maybe other types as well. I think we have to be very careful to over-generalize in that regard because each script is different and each ASCII gTLD is different; there are many variables that come into play. If it was as simple as establishing precise rules, we might not even need a dispute process. The fundamental question that will have to be asked and answered in each case is whether or not a string creates confusion, regardless of what type of confusion is involved. The RyC is not taking a position that we should be automatically granted all string variations of our gTLDs. To be honest, we would love that, and if the community wants to go that route, the RyC will support it, but we suspect that that is unrealistic. We accept the fact that we will have to apply for any IDN versions that we want. And we also expect to be able to challenge any applications for strings that we believe are confusing with strings we already have. I firmly believe that this is fully consistent with the New gTLD recommendations. May others apply for ASCII or IDN versions that are similar to the gTLD strings we currently support or support in the future? Yes, but, if we believe it creates confusion, they should anticipate a dispute. At that point it will be up to the dispute panel to decide whether there is string confusion based on whatever criteria is finally established in that regard. Regarding your request for examples, we gave at least one example in our paper. I am going to leave it at that. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Chuck, Thanks for posting this. Just so I am clear. "RyC believes that a key means of avoiding this problem is to allow all manifestations of a given top level domain to be managed by a single entity. This simple solution will also address the second issue: ensure that each TLD name always means the same thing." Which one(s) of the following is therefore true in the further explanation you (the RyC) have provided; a. No one, other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that looks like .com b. No one , other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that sounds like .com c. No one, other than Versign, could have a TLD (ascii ot IDN) that means the same as .com I think examples will help explain the RyC paper. Thanks and see you later today (?) Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2008 7:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
Thanks Chuck. I appreciate the time taken to respond. For the record I wasn't requesting any further examples, rather pointing to my own (in using Verisign). Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 10:08 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Adrian, Please accept my apologies for taking so long to respond to this. Besides being spread really thin while I was on jury duty for three weeks, I also needed to consult with RyC members to ensure that any response I gave was consistent with constituency views. I did the latter yesterday in our regular biweekly meeting. First of all it is important to emphasize that the main thrust of the RyC statement regarding the 'confusingly similar' new gTLD recommendation is that user confusion should be avoided. Also, it is critical to recognize that the statement is a constituency statement, not a VeriSign statement. I certainly participated in the development of the statement but it was truly written and ultimately approved by the full constituency. Regarding 'confusing strings' (using the latest term used by ICANN staff in their implementation work), if you read all of the information in the New gTLD Recommendations submitted to the Board, it is clear that confusion of strings could come from anyone of the three types of similarity that you cited ('looks like', 'sounds like' or 'the same as') and maybe other types as well. I think we have to be very careful to over-generalize in that regard because each script is different and each ASCII gTLD is different; there are many variables that come into play. If it was as simple as establishing precise rules, we might not even need a dispute process. The fundamental question that will have to be asked and answered in each case is whether or not a string creates confusion, regardless of what type of confusion is involved. The RyC is not taking a position that we should be automatically granted all string variations of our gTLDs. To be honest, we would love that, and if the community wants to go that route, the RyC will support it, but we suspect that that is unrealistic. We accept the fact that we will have to apply for any IDN versions that we want. And we also expect to be able to challenge any applications for strings that we believe are confusing with strings we already have. I firmly believe that this is fully consistent with the New gTLD recommendations. May others apply for ASCII or IDN versions that are similar to the gTLD strings we currently support or support in the future? Yes, but, if we believe it creates confusion, they should anticipate a dispute. At that point it will be up to the dispute panel to decide whether there is string confusion based on whatever criteria is finally established in that regard. Regarding your request for examples, we gave at least one example in our paper. I am going to leave it at that. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Chuck, Thanks for posting this. Just so I am clear. "RyC believes that a key means of avoiding this problem is to allow all manifestations of a given top level domain to be managed by a single entity. This simple solution will also address the second issue: ensure that each TLD name always means the same thing." Which one(s) of the following is therefore true in the further explanation you (the RyC) have provided; a. No one, other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that looks like .com b. No one , other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that sounds like .com c. No one, other than Versign, could have a TLD (ascii ot IDN) that means the same as .com I think examples will help explain the RyC paper. Thanks and see you later today (?) Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2008 7:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
This is a useful paper, thanks to the RyC. I note one factual inaccuracy wrt to UDRP proceedings. Under the current UDRP, a trademark owner (XYZ) can bring one complaint against domains in several TLDs (xyz.net, xyz.com) if they are registered to the same registrant. If xyz.munchen and xyz.munich were registered to different registrants, the trademark owner would need to file two complaints regardless whether there are one or two registry operators for those TLDs. I suggest the RyC may want to amend that section of the paper so as not to rely on a faulty premise. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
We have learned, to our embarrassment, that one paragraph of the RyC Confusingly Similar Statement I distributed to the Council list on 10 April is incorrect. The paragraph that reads, "For example, assume that different registry operators were approved for .Munich and .München. If a cybersquatter registered the domain names XYZ.Munich and XYZ.München, then the owner of the trademark XYZ would have to file two separate complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Also, the implementation of a panel decision against the cybersquatter would need to involve both registries, but, if both gTLDs were registered with the same registry, that complication could be avoided." should be deleted (or ignored) since it does not accurately reflect the procedural rules of the URDP. Thanks to Mike Rodenbaugh for pointing this error out. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
Chuck, Can we expect to see a response to my clarification email any time soon? Sorry to be a pest... Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 8:11 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement We have learned, to our embarrassment, that one paragraph of the RyC Confusingly Similar Statement I distributed to the Council list on 10 April is incorrect. The paragraph that reads, "For example, assume that different registry operators were approved for .Munich and .München. If a cybersquatter registered the domain names XYZ.Munich and XYZ.München, then the owner of the trademark XYZ would have to file two separate complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Also, the implementation of a panel decision against the cybersquatter would need to involve both registries, but, if both gTLDs were registered with the same registry, that complication could be avoided." should be deleted (or ignored) since it does not accurately reflect the procedural rules of the URDP. Thanks to Mike Rodenbaugh for pointing this error out. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
Yes. I just finished 3 weeks of jury duty yesterday and am now trying hard to catch up. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:22 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Chuck, Can we expect to see a response to my clarification email any time soon? Sorry to be a pest... Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 8:11 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement We have learned, to our embarrassment, that one paragraph of the RyC Confusingly Similar Statement I distributed to the Council list on 10 April is incorrect. The paragraph that reads, "For example, assume that different registry operators were approved for .Munich and .München. If a cybersquatter registered the domain names XYZ.Munich and XYZ.München, then the owner of the trademark XYZ would have to file two separate complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Also, the implementation of a panel decision against the cybersquatter would need to involve both registries, but, if both gTLDs were registered with the same registry, that complication could be avoided." should be deleted (or ignored) since it does not accurately reflect the procedural rules of the URDP. Thanks to Mike Rodenbaugh for pointing this error out. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
No problems Chuck. I was hoping your Constituency may have been able to assist you in the response. It didn't necessarily have to come from you... Once again, sorry for pushing the point and I hope the words "send him to the chair" weren't part of your deliberations (on the jury anyway...) J Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 9:35 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Yes. I just finished 3 weeks of jury duty yesterday and am now trying hard to catch up. Chuck ________________________________ From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:22 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Chuck, Can we expect to see a response to my clarification email any time soon? Sorry to be a pest... Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com <mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com> Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com <http://www.ausregistryinternational.com/> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, 18 April 2008 8:11 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO Cc: David W. Maher Subject: RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement We have learned, to our embarrassment, that one paragraph of the RyC Confusingly Similar Statement I distributed to the Council list on 10 April is incorrect. The paragraph that reads, "For example, assume that different registry operators were approved for .Munich and .München. If a cybersquatter registered the domain names XYZ.Munich and XYZ.München, then the owner of the trademark XYZ would have to file two separate complaints under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Also, the implementation of a panel decision against the cybersquatter would need to involve both registries, but, if both gTLDs were registered with the same registry, that complication could be avoided." should be deleted (or ignored) since it does not accurately reflect the procedural rules of the URDP. Thanks to Mike Rodenbaugh for pointing this error out. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:31 AM To: Council GNSO Cc: Maher, David Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck
participants (3)
-
Adrian Kinderis
-
Gomes, Chuck
-
Mike Rodenbaugh