RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>