RE: [council] Language suggestions

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Good edits.

 

Just a type in 1st bullet - "no result" should read "not result"

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Zahid Jamil

Barrister-at-law

Jamil & Jamil

Barristers-at-law

219-221 Central Hotel Annexe

Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan

Cell: +923008238230

Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025

Fax: +92 21 5655026

 <http://www.jamilandjamil.com/> www.jamilandjamil.com

 

Notice / Disclaimer

This message contains confidential information and its contents are being
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
message by mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may
contain/are the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law,
and constitute privileged information protected by attorney client
privilege. The reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of
any kind whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing
it in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or
incidentally or some other use of this communication) without prior written
permission and consent of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: 11 June 2010 02:05
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Language suggestions

 

Too complicated to say what changed where so here's some suggested revised
language: 

This request is seen as urgent because there are conditions under which it
may be appropriate for applicants to request Extended Review for a string
which has been denied further processing based on a finding of confusing
similarity in the Initial Evaluation. This Extended Review would evaluate
extenuating circumstances in the application that may result in a finding of
no detrimental confusion notwithstanding the Initial Evaluation.  This may
occur, inter alia, in cases such as:

. The same Registry Operator (for an existing gTLD or a proposed new gTLD)
could apply for a string that, although similar to an existing or applied
for string, is not detrimentally similar from a user point of view. For
example, it is possible that an applicant could apply for both a gTLD with a
conventional ASCII label and a corresponding internationalized gTLD (IDN
gTLD) that could be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation, but
no result in the detrimental user confusion that the GNSO recommendation was
trying to avoid.

. A situation where there is an agreement between a new applicant Registry
Operator and the Registry Operator of an existing gTLD that allows for
better service for the users in the geographical area where the new gTLD
will be offered. For example, MuseDoma, the Registry Operator for .museum
could enter into an agreement with a new gTLD applicant to offer an IDN
version of .museum for a specific language community. The two strings might
be found confusingly similar in the Initial Evaluation even though the
delegation of both would not cause detrimental confusion.

We thank you for your prompt attention to this GNSO Council request.