IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 19th September 2011, 09:19 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Confusion (aural/visual) issues/comments

This paragraph was included in these last 7 guidebook updates including today's released guidebook:

"Such category of objection is not limited to
visual similarity. Rather, confusion based on any type of
similarity (including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning)
may be claimed by an objector"


http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...18feb09-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...04oct09-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...28may10-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...12nov10-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...15apr11-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...30may11-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...19sep11-en.pdf


Latest comment from S. Subbiah in an attempt to change that (He and his associates made similar attempts on several prior comment periods):

"but also for aural and meaning/concept similarity. That is, if somebody applies for a Mongolian script IDN gTLD string that means "business" (as opposed to maybe "commercial"), Verisign could object on the basis of its current stewardship of the ascii.com gtld string."


"This can be at least partly stopped if we simply went back to allowing objection from the currently very very FEW ( and thanks to ICANN largese thus far extremely rich ) incumbent registries to be limited only to cases of clear visual confusion and not aural or meaning/concept related ones."

http://forum.icann.org/lists/6gtld-e.../msg00019.html

ICANN Comments summary on simlarity:

"Analysis of Comments
The comments regarding the scope of the similarity assessment are well taken. As has been
stated in relation to previous public comment periods, the string similarity assessment in the
initial evaluation is solely focused on visual similarity. The support from many for that approach
is noted, as is the diverging view that aural similarity be considered, an approach that is
controversial in principle and very difficult to perform in practice, while such similarity can indeed
be invoked in a subsequent string similarity objection process. The proposed position is to keep
the established approach unchanged. One comment suggests that, ―Aural and meaning
similarity‖ should not be considered at all. As reinforced by community discussion, possible
examination for these types of similarity was included in the policy recommendations of the
GNSO that was approved by the Board. The idea is that user confusion should not be likely to
occur – no matter what the cause of that confusion, Therefore, absent other policy advice, the
current objection model that includes all types of confusion will remain in place, although the
similarity assessment during initial evaluation will be limited to visual similarity."

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-g...30may11-en.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 19th September 2011, 10:09 PM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Confusion (aural/visual) issues/comments

Game, Set and Match. Verisign.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 19th September 2011, 10:33 PM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1682
555 has disabled reputation
Re: Confusion (aural/visual) issues/comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rubber Duck View Post
Game, Set and Match.
Ready when you are: www.JamesList.com
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 19th September 2011, 10:48 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 7,495
iTrader: (65)
Rep Power: 2680
blastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enoughblastfromthepast will become famous soon enough
Re: Confusion (aural/visual) issues/comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by 555 View Post
Ready when you are: www.JamesList.com
Do they have an affiliate program?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 19th September 2011, 10:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,479
iTrader: (64)
Rep Power: 863
dnnames is on a distinguished roaddnnames is on a distinguished roaddnnames is on a distinguished roaddnnames is on a distinguished roaddnnames is on a distinguished roaddnnames is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to dnnames
Re: Confusion (aural/visual) issues/comments

My thesis (about completed) actually considers this very issue in one of the parts. If you look at the earlier public comments and analysis, especially version two I think, ICANN continues to simple reiterate that string similarity will be reviewed on grounds broader other than visual in the objection stage (e.g. meaning, aural) without specifically addressing the issue of what would happen in relation to generic keywords which mean the same thing in different languages/scripts.

There were a lot of comments made (again I think version 2 has the most) which had outlined a number of reasons why the blocking of generic keywords in other languages because of the simple fact that the keyword already exists in another language. Things raised included:
- being unfair to smaller countries/languages esp developing countries
- locks up a lot of useful gTLD strings
- the similarity argument being not compelling because the domains are written in different scripts.

However, ICANN simply reiterates what is said in the Applicant Guidebook (which is not overly helpful)..
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 20th September 2011, 03:25 AM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4511
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Confusion (aural/visual) issues/comments

Quote:
Originally Posted by dnnames View Post
However, ICANN simply reiterates what is said in the Applicant Guidebook (which is not overly helpful)..
Yes, it is because that is approved policy. It is effectively the law.
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54