RE: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking IDN gTLDs]

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks.  As you can tell I had forgotten about that statement.  I
personally do not think that it will work for us to consider any plan
that just focuses on existing gTLDs.  If there is any hope of developing
a plan that might get broad acceptance, it will need to address a
broader base of interests.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:58 AM
> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] RE: same string registered at 2nd 
> level across different IDN gTLDs [RE: [gnso-idng] rethinking 
> IDN gTLDs]
> 
> 
> 
> On 6 Dec 2009, at 15:49, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Avri - what do you mean by "IDN that might be seen as 
> 'mirroring' incumbent gTLDs"?
> 
> 
> I meant the discussion that grew out of:
> 
> > On 20 Nov 2009, at 04:31, Edmon Chung wrote:
> > 
> >> Based on the above, I can think of 2 possible options or tracks:
> >> 
> >> ...
> 
> >> 2. to have a special track for IDN gTLDs that would 
> "mirror" existing 
> >> gTLDs
> ...
> 
> cheers
> a.
> 
> 
>