Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7

[Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, I think this is pretty much what we discussed.

However, I would like to again make the case for 
a bit more under c. I belive that demonstrating 
rights to the string is a part of what the 
applicant should be able to do. But I also 
strongly believe that they should be given the 
opportunity to explain why they believe that the 
new TLD will not be confusingly similar to one of 
the protected strings. In the call, there was 
reference to this being a difficult thing to 
determine, and that it is subjective, and I agree 
to both. But the rejection of a string under the 
String Similarity Review is just that - 
subjective and a judgement call. That call will 
ultimately be made by the review panel. All the 
trademark rights in the world will not change 
their mind if they feel there is a strong 
expectation of user confusion, but the applicant 
SHOULD be given an opportunity to explain why 
they do not think that is the case. What they say 
can then be considered by the review panel in their final deliberation.
Alan

At 15/02/2012 11:41 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> All,
>
> As a result of the call, I am trying to sum up 
> what I believe option 7 is for Question 1 (see 
> below), so that we can get feedback from our 
> respective groups.  Can you please forward to me 
> an comments on this as to whether this matches 
> your understanding of what was discussed?
> Thanks.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> ·        Option 7:  Treat the terms set forth in 
> Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning:
> a)      The names are available as gTLD strings 
> to the International Olympic Committee, 
> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
> b)      Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed 
> during the String Similarity review to determine 
> whether they are similar to those in Section 
> 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that 
> is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name 
> will not pass this initial review.
> c)       Unlike other applied for gTLDs, 
> however, the process would not end 
> here.  Applicants for these strings, or those 
> strings found to be similar through the String 
> Similarity Review will have the opportunity in 
> an “extended evaluation” to demonstrate that 
> they have rights or legitimate interests to the strings they are seeking.
> -          This could be in the form of a letter 
> of non-objection from the International Olympic 
> Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable; or
> -          A demonstration of trademark rights in the strings
> -          Other factors?
> d)  This would not preclude the IOC/Red Cross 
> from bringing a legal rights objection if they 
> disagree with the “determination of rights or legitimate interests”.
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>
> 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.
>
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:04 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Agenda and Materials for 2/8/12 Call
>
> All,
>
> Here is my proposed Agenda for the call on 
> Wednesday.  Please let me know if you want to add anything else.
> I.                    Schedule (including Costa Rica sessions)
> II.                  Recap of Last Call
> III.                Feedback from 
> Team/Constituencies/SGs/ACs on Top-Level Options
> IV.                Next Steps / Prep for GNSO 
> Call & Possible Status call with GAC
> I am a little disappointed by the lack of 
> e-mails in the last two weeks on the questions 
> presented, so please come to the meeting ready to contribute.
> Thanks.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Question 1.  How should the Olympic and Red 
> Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round
> GAC Proposal
> 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.
> ·        Option 1: Recommend no changes to 
> Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal.  This means 
> that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
> a)       Are not considered “Reserved Names”
> b)      Applied for strings are not reviewed for 
> similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
> ·        Option 2:  Treat the terms set forth in 
> Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2.  This means that:
> a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and
> b)  applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during 
> the String Similarity review to determine 
> whether they are similar to those in Section 
> 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that 
> is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
> c)        Like other applied for gTLDs not 
> passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
> ·        Option 3:  Treat the terms set forth in 
> Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning:
> a)      The names are available as gTLD strings 
> only to the International Olympic Committee, 
> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
> b)      applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed 
> during the String Similarity review to determine 
> whether they are similar to those in Section 
> 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that 
> is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.
> c)       Like other applied for gTLDs not 
> passing String Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
> ·        Option 4a – Same as Option 2, except 
> there would be an appeal process for those 
> organizations that can demonstrate legitimate 
> rights to the “reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
> ·        Option 4b – Same as Option 3, except 
> there would be an appeal process for those 
> organizations that can demonstrate legitimate 
> rights to the “modified reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
> ·        Option 5a:  Same as Option 3 except 
> that the “modified reserve names” are available 
> as gTLD strings only to the International 
> Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and 
> Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities 
> receiving a letter of non-objection from the 
> International Olympic Committee, International 
> Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable.
> ·        Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also 
> to include entities receiving a letter of 
> non-objection from a relevant government.
> ·        Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except 
> that there would be an appeal process for those 
> entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights 
> to the “modified reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
> ·        Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except 
> there would be an appeal process for those 
> entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights 
> to the “modified reserved names.”  Appeal mechanism TBD.
> Question 2.  Should the protections set forth in 
> Question 1 apply to languages in addition to 
> those set forth in the chart in Section 
> 2.2.1.2.3?  If yes, which additional languages?
> a)      Option 1:  No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook
> b)      Option 2:  Accept GAC Proposal stating 
> asking for protection in “multiple languages - 
> all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.”
> c)       Option 3:  Extending protections to 
> other languages, but a subset of languages.
> Question 3.  Should the Protections in Questions 
> 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?
> a)       Option 1:  Yes, it should apply in all future rounds
> b)      Option 2:   No, it should only apply to this current round.
> c)       Option 3:  It should apply in this 
> current round with no decision on subsequent 
> rounds.  We should evaluate the results of this 
> initial round, document lessons learned, and 
> then decide on recommendations on subsequent 
> rounds based on the results of the evaluation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 / 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / 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.