Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Chuck and Kristina.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:15:20 
To:<avri@xxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [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
>
>
>