RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

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

Wolf,

 

Speaking in my personal capacity, I do not understand the concerns.
Extended review is by its design an exception procedure; an applicant
would have to request it for it to happen on a given application.  It
would then be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that
there was not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity. 

 

Before considering additional work for an already overworked GNSO, it
would sure help to understand what the ISPCP issues are.  What you say
below gives no clue about them.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:00 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation

 

Dear councillors, 

after repeated discussion the ISPCP constituency still has the following
concerns regarding the letter to be sent to Kurt Pritz.

We understand that there are examples of string similarity which would
not necessarily would cause detrimental confusion and that in this case
- and only in this - an extended review should be granted to the
applicant.

However strict rules must be set under which the extended review is
permitted ensuring the string similarity review is the normal case and
the extended one an exception. These rules are to be worked out with
participation of the community.

The letter should express that the rules must immediately be worked out
by a small expert group in order to achieve community acceptance.

 

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich