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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Alan.  I see no harm in allowing the application to make their 
case and there could be value added.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:58 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7

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 / 
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.