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

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

I support that as well Mike.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:53 PM
> To: 'Edmon Chung'; gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>