<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|