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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Konstantinos,

Are your comments concerning both the top and second levels?  I understand the 
applicability at the second level, but do you really believe this is an issue 
at the top level?



Sent with Good (www.good.com)


 -----Original Message-----
From:   Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent:   Monday, January 16, 2012 12:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:     'Gomes, Chuck'; Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject:        RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: String Similarity Review

We need to come up with a system that does not only allow for a trademark 
owner, not associated with IOC, to apply for a similar name. the system should 
also allow names that have connotations relating to cultural or traditional 
knowledge to also be put through. What I am trying to say is that if I were to 
register the term 'olympiad' and provide historical and cultural information 
concerning the location, its traditions and the genesis of the Olympic games I 
should be allowed to do so.

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Σάββατο, 14 Ιανουαρίου 2012 1:29 μμ
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Shatan, Gregory S.; Jeff Neuman; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: String Similarity Review

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.

Chuck

> -----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 (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