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