Dear all,
Just a small “no objection” from my side in the attached documents, to the suggestion to have .eu included as an example (page 3 – comment number 8 – clean
version). Moreover, I took the opportunity to add in this context that an unchallengeable policy in terms of confusing similarity throughout the TLD space would be highly desirable.
Currently:
·
When requesting a new ccTLD corresponding to an ISO-code, there is no confusing similarity assessment made at present. If the code is available, it
is delegated;
·
New gTLDs: Soft confusing similarity check. E.g.: Hotels and hotel are not deemed to be confusingly similar;
·
IDN ccTLDs: Strict confusing similarity check against ISO codes and even gTLDs or applied for gTLDs.
Best regards,
Joke Braeken (Ms)
External Relations Deputy Manager
EURid
Woluwelaan 150
1831 Diegem - Belgium
TEL.: +32 (0) 2 401 27 50
DIRECT: +32 (0) 2 401 30 14
MOB.:+32 (0) 473 779 559
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann
Sent: maandag 16 maart 2015 8:15
To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] today's meeting
Dear all,
In preparation for our meeting, please find attached the latest version of the Options paper – one clean version (with comments only) and one redline version
with comments received since our last call. We will aim to finalise the background section and start discussing substantial options for 2-letter codes.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Lars
Proposed agenda, CWG on Country and Territory Names, Monday 16 March 20 UTC, http://tinyurl.com/mxjcvcm
1. Welcome
2. Confirm agreement on Section 1
3. Substantial Discussion on two-letter strings (Section 2 of Options Paper)
4. Confirmation of Next Meeting
5. AOB