ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: String Similarity Review
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:29:15 +0000

Let me clarify what I tried to communicate on our call earlier this week.  I 
support a process whereby an exception could be made with a letter of support 
or non-objection from the IOC.  We already have precedent for this with regard 
to 2-letter country codes at the second level and with governmental names at 
the top-level.  In other words, we can recommend that the GNSO approve the GAC 
recommendations in a manner that allows for a trademark owner that is not 
associated with the IOC to apply for one of the IOC names if they get a letter 
of support or non-objection from the IOC.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:52 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Shatan, Gregory S.; Jeff Neuman; gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: String Similarity Review
> 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 (, 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, 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy