regarding gnso idn debates

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear all,

As Tan Tin Wee informed, there have been some debates on idn tld issues.
Among all those issues, I think the following thing might be the key issue
although it didn't get majority support in priority straw poll. However,
that issue has always been the main focus of the existing gTLD registries
even in former DNSO discussion on new gTLD policies. As I confirmed the
transcript of 23 January conference, maybe half of talks seemed to refer
to this issue - "confusingly similar" test in new idn tld.

Today, I made just one comment on this, but still I cannot find my posting
in that archive. I am not sure why, but maybe I could be in a status of
observer. Here again, I post my comment.


regards,

Chun

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet |   fax:     (+82)  2-2649-2624
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82)  19-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea  	    | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I couldn't catch up the recent debates, but I want to make quick comment
on one issue of "limit confusion caused by variants", which I could read
from conference call 23 January overview - 2.2 as follows;

2.2 Agreement to limit confusion and collisions due to variants. Agreement
that this may be a stability and security issue and part of the reserved
name process. Agreement that variants of an IDN gTLD string be treated in
analogy with current practice for IDN SLD labels, i.e. variants are not
available for registration by others. Agreement that this approach implies
certain "ex ante rights" with similarities to the "confusingly similar"
test foreseen in the New gTLD recommendations. Agreement that such
"rights" must not be confounded with IPR rights as such. Some support for
enabling a choice for an IDN gTLD strings with variants to only block
variants or to use variants as aliasing.

What I want to clarify here is the fact that variants come from the same
language or the same language family. Therefore, the confusion or
collision happen in the same language or within the same language family
as well. We cannot use the term of variant in case when some translated or
transliterated or phonetically same or similar words (language script
labels) are to be taken into account. And obviously, in different
languages or in different language families, there is no longer confusion
or collision even when those  in respective language are similar or the
same in graphics, semantics and sound because different language scripts
must be distinctive itself. So, in this case, "confusingly similar" test
cannot be applied. Accordingly, across different language script labels,
there should not be any "ex ante rights" of the existing TLD label, and so
any reserved name policy would not necessarily be designed.


regards,

Chun