[council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

[Avri Doria]

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
>>
>>
>>
>
>