RE: [gnso-rn-wg] IDN WG Recommendations

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

Avri,

Note that I said they "may' have impact.  I also am not sure that they
do but it seemed possible that variants of geographical or controversial
names could be an issue so I thought I should at least flag it.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:32 PM
> To: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] IDN WG Recommendations
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am not sure why the two categories form the IDN, specifically:
> 
> >> 4.1.5. Limit Variant Confusion and Collision 4.1.6. Limit 
> Confusingly 
> >> Similar Strings
> 
> apply to the RN types under discussion in any special way.  
> I.e. I do not understand what conditions on controversial 
> names would be different because of these two constraints.  
> As far as I can tell, these are already included in the new 
> gTLD process and have precedence over any discussion of 
> Reserved Names.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 apr 2007, at 09.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Thanks Patrick.  Good add.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or 
> entity to 
> > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is 
> privileged, 
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any 
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly 
> prohibited. 
> > If you have received this message in error, please notify sender 
> > immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> >
> >
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn- 
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] 
> > On Behalf Of Patrick Jones
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:15 PM
> > To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] IDN WG Recommendations
> >
> > I would add under Single/2-Character Names:
> >
> >
> >
> > 4.1.3. Language Community Input for Evaluation of new IDN 
> gTLD Strings
> > 4.1.9d(5) ICANN should consult with the relevant language 
> communities 
> > if in doubt whether an IDN gTLD string is in compliance 
> with relevant 
> > tables
> >
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn- 
> > wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:04 PM
> > To: GNSO RN WG
> > Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] IDN WG Recommendations
> >
> >
> >
> > I sent the IDN working group recommendations several weeks ago but  
> > thought it might be helpful to send it again.  I want to call  
> > attention to the following recommendations in the report that may  
> > be relevant to subgroup work related to IDNs:
> >
> >
> >
> > Single/2-Character Names
> >
> > 4.1.5. Limit Variant Confusion and Collision
> >
> >
> > Geographical & Geopolitical Names
> >
> > 4.1.2. GAC Consultation on Geo-political Impact
> > 4.1.5. Limit Variant Confusion and Collision
> > 4.1.6. Limit Confusingly Similar Strings
> >
> >
> > Controversial Names
> >
> > 4.1.5. Limit Variant Confusion and Collision
> > 4.1.6. Limit Confusingly Similar Strings
> >
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> >
> >
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity  
> > to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is  
> > privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under  
> > applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure  
> > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message 
> in error,  
> > please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original  
> > transmission."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>