We have learned, to our embarrassment, that one
paragraph of the RyC Confusingly
Similar Statement I distributed to the Council
list on 10 April is incorrect.
The paragraph that reads, "For example, assume that different registry
operators were approved for .Munich and .München. If a cybersquatter
registered the domain names XYZ.Munich and XYZ.München, then the owner of
the trademark XYZ would have to file two separate complaints under the Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Also, the implementation of a panel
decision against the cybersquatter would need to involve both registries, but,
if both gTLDs were registered with the same registry, that complication could be
avoided." should be deleted (or ignored)
since it does not accurately reflect the procedural rules of the URDP.
Thanks to Mike Rodenbaugh for pointing this error
out.
Chuck
Here's a statement developed by the RyC
regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts
in that regard.
Chuck