[council] Since I can't participate by phone

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Cyril raises an important point here.  The implications are significant.


Limiting ourselves to technical confusion is simply not, in my view,
practical.  Can you imagine the chaos that will result if entire
language communities are confused because of the similarity in the
strings?

On another note, the IDN Working Group reached Agreement (in the RFC
2119 way) on the principle that confusingly similar strings should be
avoided.  We have never questioned the process by which the IDN WG
reached that conclusion and, in fact, the BGC WG singles out the IDN WG
as an example of a successful WG.  What does a Council decision to
reject a properly-constituted, process-following WG principle on which
Agreement was reached mean for the viability for the BGC WG
recommendations?

K 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of cyrilchua@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:21 AM
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report


Hi Avri

We need to maintain the consistency because we do not want similar
factual disputes having different outcomes in gTLD and ccTLD.
Kind regards,
Cyril Chua
Partner
IP & Technology Group
--------
Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP
39 Robinson Road #07-01, Robinson Point, Singapore 068911
Tel: (65) 6534 5266 / Fax: (65) 6223 8762 / DID: (65) 6428 9812
http://www.atmdlaw.com.sg
--------
ALBAN TAY MAHTANI & DE SILVA LLP
< This message (including attachments) contains privileged and
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you
are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate,
distribute, publish or copy this message.  If you have received this
message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from
your system and notify us at mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  Unless it relates to
the official business of ATMD, any opinions or matters expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender. >


----- Original Message -----
From: Avri Doria [avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 02/12/2008 05:41 PM ZE5B
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
>
>
>