RE: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement

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

We have learned, to our embarrassment, that one paragraph of the RyC 
Confusingly Similar Statement I distributed to the Council list on 10 April is 
incorrect. 
The paragraph that reads, "For example, assume that different registry 
operators were approved for .Munich and .München. If a cybersquatter registered 
 the domain names XYZ.Munich and XYZ.München, then the owner of the trademark 
XYZ would have to file two separate complaints under the Uniform Dispute 
Resolution Policy (UDRP).  Also, the implementation of a panel decision against 
the cybersquatter would need to involve both registries, but, if both gTLDs 
were registered with the same registry, that complication could be avoided." 
should be deleted (or ignored) since it does not accurately reflect the 
procedural rules of the URDP.
 
Thanks to Mike Rodenbaugh for pointing this error out.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:31 AM
To: Council GNSO
Cc: Maher, David
Subject: [council] RyC Confusingly Similar Statement


Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, 
hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard.
 
Chuck