Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Edmon,

I was not objecting to your doc, but was rather answering Mike's question:

>> if we have consensus to go
>> one step further and make a recommendation to Council, asking Council to ask
>> Staff to revise the DAG to clarify that multiple 'confusingly similar' 
>> applications by
>> the same applicant would not contend with one another. 

By indicating that I do not believe we have that consensus.

a.


On 13 Apr 2010, at 23:57, Edmon Chung wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> If you look at the document, it simply describes the problem and leave
> further action to the council.  
> 
> As suggested, and as you pointed out, I also do not think we arrived at much
> consensus except for identifying the problem of applying for confusingly
> similar TLD strings.  Which was what I am suggesting we report back to the
> council.  No suggestion or charter for working group was included.
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
>> Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:33 AM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> I would not feel we had consensus on this.
>> 
>> This was just a Drafting team, and we never even came to agreement on a
> charter
>> for a working group let alone a policy change to the DAG.  This group
> essentially
>> stalled because there was no consensus among the few people participating.
>> 
>> While there might be agreement on their being a possible problem, there
> was no
>> agreement on what to do about it, or even on whether anything should be
> done
>> about it.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 13 Apr 2010, at 21:53, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks Edmon.  I am good with the draft, but wonder if we have consensus
> to go
>> one step further and make a recommendation to Council, asking Council to
> ask
>> Staff to revise the DAG to clarify that multiple 'confusingly similar'
> applications by
>> the same applicant would not contend with one another.  I support that
>> recommendation, and wonder whether there is any opposition in this group?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> Mike Rodenbaugh
>>> RODENBAUGH LAW
>>> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
>>> http://rodenbaugh.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
>> Behalf Of Edmon Chung
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:10 AM
>>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>>> 
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>> 
>>> Given no further discussions on the 2 topics that were identified:
>>> 
>>> 1. Application of confusingly similar TLD strings
>>>     - there seems to be enough agreement around this topic in general
>>>     - also attached clean version of the document
>>> 
>>> 2. Process for the application of IDN gTLDs, including those identified
> in 1
>>>     - there continues to be push back against having any dedicated
> process to
>> handle special case IDN TLD applications
>>> 
>>> And given that it seems any further discussion would require the GNSO
> council to
>> consider whether an actual working group should be formed for further work
> on 1 (if
>> any) unless there is any particular objection, I will report the above
> back to the
>> council.
>>> 
>>> Edmon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2807 - Release Date: 04/14/10
> 04:22:00
>