<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
- To: <avri@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:15:20 -0500
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AchtcLUejkl3VcEzTtSErnsjwzCWCAAADqw8
- Thread-topic: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
I agree with Chuck.
Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
voice: 202-662-5173
direct fax: 202-778-5173
main fax: 202-662-6291
e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Feb 12 07:11:02 2008
Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
Hi,
While it would be inconsistent with the new gTLD policy
recommendations, I don't know if there is a necessity for consistency
in this case as we are dealing with ccTLDs not gTLDs and we are
dealing with significant expressions of a countries name or identity.
So the conditions might be different.
In terms of the statement I am not sure I know what Technical
confusion is any more then I really understood what confusingly
similar was. Are we saying it should not be visually or
homographically similar,? I also wonder if there is another problem
in this one. The name of a country in various representations will
be similar to the name of the country in another representation - but
in a sense that seems appropriate and not a problem.
a.
On 12 Feb 2008, at 16:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> That would be inconsistent with the recommendations made for new
> gTLDs. We can't go back now and change what we already did.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:53 AM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
>
> How about:
> "Strings that cause technical confusion should be avoided."
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12 Feb 2008, at 14:29, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> **** THEREFORE, I propose that we amend our statement, so that
>>> only "technical confusion" is the type of confusion that we deal
>>> with. Otherwise, not only are we in contrast with legal norms,
>>> we are also outside the scope of ICANN's authority.
>>
>>
>> Can you suggest the exact wording change you are proposing?
>>
>> As with other suggested changes, I believe we can make if there are
>> no objections.
>> On the other hand, if there are objections, we may need to vote on
>> this amendment before voting on the response itself.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|