[council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

[Alan Greenberg]

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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at 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 at gnso.icann.org
>>>[mailto:owner-council at 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 at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>>
>>