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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Ah, well, if i merely disagree, and you strongly disagree, that must trump my 
disagreement.
But seriously, you cannot claim consensus from this group on this issue.

Of course if the Council wants to offer suggestions on the DAG and can get 
consensus on a motion then you will have what you want.

a.


On 14 Apr 2010, at 19:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Not the first time we disagree but I strongly disagree.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:30 PM
>> To: gnso-idng@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-idng] reporting back to the council
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 14 Apr 2010, at 18:22, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>>> "Recommendation 2 of the GNSO new gTLD recommendations 
>> (restriction of confusingly similar new gTLDs) was not 
>> intended to prevent an applicant from applying for multiple 
>> IDN versions of the same gTLD, whether that gTLD is an 
>> existing gTLD or a new gTLD."  I strongly believe that that 
>> is an accurate statement regardless of how one defines 
>> confusingly similar.
>> 
>> 
>> I do not believe it is an accurate statement.
>> 
>> It is a topic that was not discussed in sufficient depth, if 
>> at all, and it is impossible to make any claims about the GNSO intent.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>