[lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Singular / Plural en los nuevos gTLD

Mie Sep 4 20:37:58 UTC 2013

Carlton,

gracias por enviar estos mensajes sobre los dictámenes sobre nombres que pueden dar lugar a confusión entre el singular y el plural.

Comparto el criterio de Sadowsky, Madruga-Forti y Chalaby. 

¿Estás proponiendo alguna acción de parte de LACRALO? ¿Puedes recordarnos los antecedentes particulares de tu consulta previa a LACRALO y las recomendaciones de ALAC?

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

________________________________________
Desde: lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de carlton.samuels en gmail.com [carlton.samuels en gmail.com]
Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de septiembre de 2013 14:29
Hasta: lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] Fwd: Singular / Plural en los nuevos gTLD

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]

 Asunto: Fwd: Singular / Plural en los nuevos gTLD
 Desde: carlton.samuels en gmail.com

 ==============================
 Carlton Un Samuels
 Móvil: 876-818-1799
 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround *
 =============================

 ---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
 De: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels en gmail.com>
 Fecha: Miércoles, 04 de septiembre 2013 a las 11:53 AM
 Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Singular / Plural de nuevos gTLD
 A: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en mcgill.ca>
 Cc: Lista de trabajo ALAC <alac en atlarge-lists.icann.org>

 Gracias por traer esto a otro, Alan. Sí para instigar el debate en
 la comunidad, ALAC incluye, además, podemos siempre justo delante de Alan
 señalar a las listas regionales.

 Puedo estar de acuerdo en que la definición aceptada de &quot;confusamente similar&quot; se estrecha
 la comprensión de cómo funciona la percepción.Pero todo handwringing un lado, la
 resultado final es probable que el impacto negativo en el usuario final. Así que, ¿qué hacemos?

 Leí la intervención de Evan de cerca y con toda franqueza, no puede encontrar defectos
 con su análisis, incluyendo su opinión sobre el resultado probable de cualquier ALAC
 declaración. Lo bueno es que como dice Evan, los usuarios encontrarán alternativas a
 mitigar la ligera. Así que no voy a botar los escombros. Pero yo apoyaría
 una declaración en la abundancia de garantía es de &quot;corrección política&quot; en lugar
 que cualquier expectativa de un cambio significativo, por supuesto.

 -Carlton

 ==============================
 Carlton Un Samuels
 Móvil: 876-818-1799
 * Estrategia, Planificación, Gobierno, Evaluación y Turnaround *
 =============================

 El mar, 03 de septiembre 2013 a las 21:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en mcgill.ca> escribió:

> On 24 June 2013 as requested by the GAC, the Board New gTLD Program
> Committee (NGPC) considered the issue of singular and plural stings being
> confusingly similar and decided to let the original process stand (subject
> to individual objections). The record of the decision can be found at
> http://www.icann.org/en/**groups/board/documents/**
> minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.**htm#2.d<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.d>.
> Of particular note is a statement issued by three Board members (George
> Sadowsky, Olga Madruga-Forti and Cherine Chalaby) who supported the
> decision but regretted that, based on the Applicant Guidebook wording, they
> did not believe that they had the leeway to vote against it. One Board
> member (Mike Silber) did oppose the decision.
>
> A central issue is that "confusingly similar" test relies purely on visual
> similarity and in the eyes of most (who were involved in the decision),
> adding an "S" makes it a recognizably different string.
>
> The salient part of the Applicant Guidebook (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/
> **applicants/agb/guidebook-full-**04jun12-en.pdf<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-04jun12-en.pdf>)
> is section 2.2.1.1 of Module 2.
>
>  This review involves a preliminary comparison of each applied-for gTLD
>> string against existing TLDs, Reserved Names (see subsection 2.2.1.2), and
>> other applied-for strings. The objective of this review is to prevent user
>> confusion and loss of confidence in the DNS resulting from delegation of
>> many similar strings.
>>
>> Note: In this Applicant Guidebook, "similar" means strings so similar
>> that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of the
>> strings is delegated into the root zone.
>>
>> The visual similarity check that occurs during Initial Evaluation is
>> intended to augment the objection and dispute resolution process (see
>> Module 3, Dispute Resolution Procedures) that addresses all types of
>> similarity.
>>
>
> I believe that the NGPC decision was incorrect. The problem is the belief
> that "visual similarity" relies purely on what, in computer terminology,
> would be called "pattern matching". Pattern matching is certainly part of
> human perception, but it is not limited to that. At issue is whether two
> strings will be PERCEIVED as being equivalent, and perception is a far more
> complex (and less understood) issue.
>
> The real issue is that if you earlier found something at hilton.hotel, or
> had decided that the reviews at sheraton.hotel were something you trusted,
> will you later remember if it was really those sites or hilton.hotels or
> sheraton.hotels?
>
> At best, this could be considered a means of forcing anyone who registers
> a domain with .hotel or .hotels to register both, and map both of them to
> the same site. If that were to happen, the predictions of the Intellectual
> Property Constituency would be borne out, and all of those using these TLDs
> would have to make double the investment in domain names (presuming this is
> even possible with differing rules for each TLD). But the impact on users
> would be minimal.
>
> But since we cannot guarantee that both TLDs will remain forever in sync,
> we do have a user problem. Once cannot expect the typical Internet user to
> be able to differentiate between two such name spaces, and therefore I
> believe that we have a genuine case of "confusingly similar". And one that
> will arguably have as much or more impact on real Internet users, the ones
> that we are supposed to be here to defend, than any other case I can recall
> in my 7 year involvement with ICANN At-Large.
>
> If others on the ALAC agree, I would be happy to create a statement
> reflecting what I have said here, that we can, in our formal Advisory
> Committee role, forward as Advice to the Board.
>
> Alan
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/alac<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/**display/atlarge/At-Large+
> **Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>
>

[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/881f99adf2.html
--]]