<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] AG changes reflecting council resolution 20100715-1
- To: <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] AG changes reflecting council resolution 20100715-1
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:45:31 -0500
- In-reply-to: <0f4801cb93c0$b291bad0$17b53070$@asia>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcuTwFLY9V7JQpeRQCS8oWpnWGJwcgAAZO6v
- Thread-topic: [council] AG changes reflecting council resolution 20100715-1
Your assessment is correct Edmon.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 09:36 AM
To: 'Council GNSO' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] AG changes reflecting council resolution 20100715-1
Hi Everyone,
Finally had a chance to look through the proposed final AG...
I refer to our resolution in June and July about Confusingly similar TLD
strings and our request for the AG to be updated regarding the issue:
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201006 (20100610-1) and
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201007 (20100715-1)
It seems to me (based on the redline version) that nothing to that effect seems
to have been put in place, and the String Similarity review still says:
An application that fails the String Similarity review due to
similarity to an existing TLD will not pass the Initial Evaluation,
and no further reviews will be available.
I wonder if anyone did find the changes relevant to our resolution... and
whether staff can help explain what actions were taken with regards to the
above resolutions...
Edmon
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|