<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div>
<div>
<div>Update:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John and Zahid may raise the idea of GNSO Council asking for a formal Reconsideration of ICANN's decision on contention sets. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In addition the confusion/precedent/defensive concerns we've already disused, Ron Andruff raised another rationale for Reconsideration: a lack of transparency regarding the panelist and the process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best case, we get the GNSO Chair to raise this Reconsideration request at Public Forum this afternoon in Beijing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And now this:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>An applicant whose string was fond to be visually similar was Unicom, who was placed in a contention set with Unicorn. On 9-April, China Unicom filed for formal Reconsideration (<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/wang-to-crocker-et-al-09apr13-en.pdf">link</a>),
suggesting that Visual Similarity alone was NOT a problem in this case.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best case, China Unicom goes to the mic today in the Beijing Public forum about this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--</div>
<div>
<div>Steve DelBianco</div>
<div>Executive Director</div>
<div>NetChoice</div>
<div>http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org </div>
<div>+1.202.420.7482 </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>