<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
- To: <Rosemary.Sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: AW: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
- From: <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:02:29 +0200
- In-reply-to: <C4098B07CE86654EA39EC218986582A8764F16@atug2k.ATUG.local>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <2B49B96A1B4F421093AD1CB29A0C8897@ATUG.local> <C4098B07CE86654EA39EC218986582A8764F16@atug2k.ATUG.local>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acse2C73V3xSypBBRNawPWoqlrcofQADgiHQAAeO4cABDZk20A==
- Thread-topic: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
Thanks, I won't ask for additional workload.
If "the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that there was
not a problem of detrimental confusing similarity" is appropriately
addressed in the DAG then we woldn't have an issue.
Could somebody from staff give me a hint where this is stated?
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
_____
Von: Rosemary Sinclair [mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Juli 2010 03:59
An: Gomes, Chuck; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
Hi all
I also thought we were clear that the extended review is an exception
not the norm
Perhaps we should review actual requests over the next 6 months to see
whether further clarification of guidelines is warranted
Cheers
Rosemary
Rosemary Sinclair
Managing Director, ATUG
Chairman, INTUG
T: +61 2 94958901 F: +61 2 94193889
M: +61 413734490
Email: <mailto:rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>
rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx
Skype: rasinclair
Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information
www.atug.com.au
_____
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 8:16 AM
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] Motion on New gTLD Recommendation
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|