Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: String Similarity Review

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I personally think that this issue is not as straightforward and I would like 
to repeat a point I made on the call and I think is pretty crucial: although 
the request for the special treatment of the Red Cross and the Olympic marks 
came as one by the GAC, I think it would be wise to separate them as, at least 
in some cases, they generate different issues. More specific, some 
determinations concerning the Red Cross mark appear to be more straightforward 
than the one involving the Olympic (for the reasons I have explained in my call 
– the term Olympic, in and my itself and without the 5 circles, involves issues 
of cultural heritage, trademarks and traditional knowledge, all protected by 
intellectual property provisions.)

I do appreciate the point Chuck makes concerning the value of the string 
similarity review and I think it is very important to make sure that consumers 
are not confused. But in this process, we should not prevent other recognized 
rights from having the possibility to be expressed in the DNS; and, we should 
refrain from using consumer confusion as a justification for allowing those 
rights. concerning also that the review is based on a visual similarity check 
(2.2.1.1.), the need to make sure we get this right is important.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:51:38 +0000
To: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: String Similarity Review

I also think it would be a good idea to include the IOC/RC names in string 
similarity review; as I stated on our call earlier this week, the purpose of 
that review is to prevent user confusion and that objective is important for 
all strings including the IOC/RC names.

Regarding the “list of names/strings that will be explicitly reserved 
(translations and variations)”, wasn’t that provided in the GAC letter?

In both cases above, I think it would be a good idea for us to request GAC 
feedback before finalizing any positions.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:12 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] String Similarity Review

In response to Jeff Neuman's request for email follow-up on the String 
Similarity issue, I  wanted to confirm that I am in favor of a String 
Similarity review for the IOC/RC names.  I don't think it's a particularly 
complicated process (as one participant in the call stated), and I assume that 
it will become more fleshed out as reviews take place under the various 
provisions that trigger such reviews.  In any event, it's an integral part of 
the new gTLD process.

I think this issue also needs to be considered in conjunction with the list of 
names/strings that will be explicitly reserved (translations and variations) -- 
not that a longer list obviates the need for string similarity review (e.g., 
Jeff's "olympics" vs. "olympix" example).  Nonetheless, we should probably seek 
clarification on what the proposed list of IOC/RC names would be (e.g., red 
crescent, croix rouge, mogen david adom, etc.).

Thank you.

Best regards,

Greg  Shatan


Gregory S. Shatan
Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group
IP | Technology | Media
ReedSmithLLP
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275| Phone
917.816.6428| Mobile
212.521.5450| Fax
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 6:48 AM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Notes for Today's call
All,

Happy New Year.  Our first call was not the widely attended and the bulk of the 
call was devoted to the philosophical issue of whether this is policy vs. 
implementation.  We decided that we would ask staff to get guidance on this 
issue, but we would proceed based on the assumption that we were dealing with 
issues of implementation.  We were all supposed to go back to our groups to get 
some thoughts on the questions below and the proposals to be prepared to get 
down to the substance and the details of the proposals on this call.

My notes are in red below (Sorry to those reading on Blackberry or in plain 
text).  These are just my notes from the call and re-reading the transcript.  
If others have different recollections, please let me know.

Overall Issues:



a)      What is our role?

[Jeff] Provide advice to the GNSO Council in their interactions with the GAC on 
the GAC proposal on the handling of IOC/Red Cross names at the top and second 
levels in the new gTLD program.

b)      Do we believe this issue is one of implementation (as the GAC has 
interpreted), or is this an issue of policy?

[Jeff]  On the last call we decided to proceed with the discussions based on 
the assumption that these issues were ones of implementation as opposed to a 
policy.  However, we asked ICANN staff to go back to their management to get 
some more context on the board discussion in Singapore around their motion on 
this issue.

c)       Are we just talking about IOC and Red Cross Names or are we opening 
this up to other names (i.e., IGOs)?

[Jeff] At this point looking at any other names is beyond the scope of this 
group.

d)      Should these marks be protected at all?  Pros vs. Cons?  (NOTE:  This 
item’s discussion can take up the entire call, but I do not want to dwell on 
this given the number of subjects.  What I would like to do is spend no more 
than 15 minutes on this subject listing the arguments for and against.  Of 
course we will allow anyone to submit comments via e-mail on this subject after 
the call for evaluation).  I am not trying to suppress any discussion on this, 
but given that we spent almost all of the Council discussions in Dakar on this 
question alone and did not have much time to discuss the other questions, I 
want us to be able to get on to the other questions.

[Jeff]  There are differing views on this issue, but that should not prevent us 
from evaluating the proposals.

Top Level Protection
At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms 
like the words “test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 
2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving 
consideration during the String Similarity review.  Right now, these terms (in 
not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for 
Registration” and would not invoke String Similarity Review.

Questions:

a)       Should the reservation be permanent or just apply during the first 
round? i

[Jeff} On this issue the question was asked whether the GAC (or a government) 
has grounds to file an objection/early warning/etc to someone trying to get 
“Olympics” if “Olympic” s protected under the current rules today?   If so, do 
they need to have the “string similarity” review?

[Jeff] Staff was supposed to check into this question.



b)      Should terms in this round and beyond receive consideration during 
string similarity review?

c)       Should reservation in this round and beyond extend to additional 
languages?

d)      Would (d) above apply to additional languages?

[Jeff]  Staff was supposed to check into this question.


Second Level Protections
With respect to second-level names, the GAC requests that ICANN amend the new 
gTLD Registry Agreement to add a new schedule of second-level reserved names. 
The new schedule should reserve those terms set forth in Schedule A attached to 
their proposal.    They recommend the identical terms be protected in the 6 UN 
languages with an “encouragement” to registries to provide additional languages.

Questions

a.       Should Olympic and/or Red Cross names be reserved at the second level 
in all new gTLDs?

b.      If so, what type of reserved name would this be?

                                                               i.      A 
“forbidden name” that can never be registered (not even by those organizations) 
– NOTE The GAC in the Q&A said this is not what they want.

                                                             ii.      Like a 2 
letter country code where the Registry Operator may also propose release of 
these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion 
with the corresponding country codes.

                                                            iii.      Like a 
Country or Territory Names, which are initially reserved, but the reservation 
of specific country and territory names may be released to the extent that 
Registry Operator reaches agreement with the applicable government(s), 
provided, further, that Registry Operator may also propose release of these 
reservations, subject to review by ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee and 
approval by ICANN.

c.       Assuming it can be one where the reservation is released:  What would 
be the mechanism for removing from the reserved list?


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office:+1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: 
+1.703.738.7965/jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdc1