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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Are we not talking about the variants here? If so, variants have already been 
included in the updated documents staff provided for Nairobi.

If we're not talking about variants, please explain what we are talking about.

Stéphane

Le 14 avr. 2010 à 03:53, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>