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

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

I'm sorry I may be unclear on this, even though we've discussed it before, but 
with so much going on in the GNSO world at the moment, I may have lost track.

If this is not variants, then what is it about? Are you suggesting that if I 
apply for TLD XYZ and I also want the IDN equivalent, i shouldn't be blocked 
from getting that TLD because it would be considered confusingly similar by the 
algorithm / human validation systems ICANN is going to use (if so, I agree) but 
also that I should be allowed to request both XYZ and IDN-XYZ under one 
application and not have to pay a second application fee (which I'm not sure I 
would agree with)?

Stéphane

Le 14 avr. 2010 à 13:09, Edmon Chung a écrit :

> 
> This is not about IDN Variants (which has to do with IDN language
> tables/policies).
> 
> Adrian, yes, that is what this is attempting to achieve. The DAG right now
> is not clear on the issue.
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
>> Of Adrian Kinderis
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:35 PM
>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: 'Edmon Chung'; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> An existing TLD that wants the IDN equivalent won't get knocked back
> because it is
>> confusingly similar (i.e. The applicant is the same entity as the existing
> gtld registry).
>> 
>> I think...
>> 
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf
>> Of Stéphane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 2010 8:28 PM
>> To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: 'Edmon Chung'; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
>