Hi,

The following is  a line from and IDNG Drafting Team where Chuck is proposing the following.  

Begin forwarded message:

> 
> I don't think that delay of the overall process is an option.  At the same time, I believe that a simple clarifying statement from the GNSO Council could be crafted on this issue.  It could be something along the lines of the following: "Recommendation 2 of the GNSO new gTLD recommendations (restriction of confusingly similar new gTLDs) was not intended to prevent an applicant from applying for multiple IDN versions of the same gTLD, whether that gTLD is an existing gTLD or a new gTLD."  I strongly believe that that is an accurate statement regardless of how one defines confusingly similar.


I have sent a note indicating that I do not believe this is an accurate statement.  

I believe we should add a discussion of this to our meeting as it may be brought up in the Council meeting.

I do not know where NCSG stands on the issue of a single applicant applying for the same stream in a multitude of scripts and being excused from the confusing similarly rules because it is all one registry applying for the names - e.g. .com in a multitude of scripts.  Especially since they believe that they should be no binding to rules of synchronicity (e.g. if you have the name in one, you have the same name in the other and it is an alias).

i am personally against making any changes to the DAG without extensive discussions and under what if any constraints one would put on applicants in such a situation.

The thread can be found starting at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-idng/msg00397.html

looking forward to hearing people's view on the topic.

a.