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

["Joy Liddicoat" <joy@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff and thanks for this note and the various discussions. 

The argument on this wording in Option 7 is becoming somewhat circular:
"other factors" > please specify  > good examples given > disagreement >
back to "other factors". There are a number of GAC members that would
welcome the reference to WIPO related TK and CH. I think we should leave it
in precisely to help define the point.

I will look forward to our meeting next week.

 

Joy

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 7:58 a.m.
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; 'Gomes, Chuck'; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7

 

Konstantinos,

 

This note is not an official note as the chair, but rather in my personal
capacity.

 

I do understand your point, but I am not sure we need to call it out.  Much
like the UDRP does not call out what constitutes "rights or legitimate
interests", I am not sure we should necessarily be more specific than
"demonstration of trademark rights in the strings and/or other factors."  I
want to try to come to a consensus on this issue, but it is going to require
a sort of compromise.  I personally (and not as chair) believe that Chuck's
version (without the reference to traditional knowledge and cultural
heritage) still leaves open the right for an applicant to make that
argument, but also avoids some of the controversy associated with
specifically calling those items out (especially as they are not universally
recognized around the world).

 

Remember also that what we are suggesting is only for the first round and
can be reviewed (as Chuck has specifically included that language).
Speaking from a practical standpoint, do you have any reason to believe that
there is an applicant out there that will apply for a similar string to the
Olympic or Red Cross names in this first round that will rely on
"traditional knowledge or cultural heritage"?   If it is more theoretical,
then I would just ask you to consider that fact in coming to a consensus
position.  

Thanks.

 

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: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:46 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Summing up Option 7

 

thanks Chuck - please see below an extract from WIPO on traditional
knowledge and traditional cultural expressions - I can think of cases where
the olympic term can be justified through both of these provisions (the
Olympic mark case is actually part of our law studies in Greece because of
its polymorphous nature :)

Thanks

Konstantinos

Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Traditional Cultural
Expressions/Folklore

Traditional knowledge (TK), genetic resources (GRs) and traditional cultural
expressions (TCEs, or "expressions of folklore") are economic and cultural
assets of indigenous and local communities and their countries.  WIPO's work
addresses the role that intellectual property (IP) principles and systems
can play in protecting TK and TCEs from misappropriation, and in generating
and equitably sharing benefits from their commercialization and the role of
IP in access to and benefit-sharing in genetic resources.

 

 

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-Regulat
ion-isbn9780415477765

Selected publications:
http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038

Website: www.komaitis.org

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Πέμπτη, 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 6:38 μμ
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Summing up Option 7

 

Konstantinos,

 

Your changes seem okay to me except I don't know what you mean by
'traditional knowledge'.

 

Chuck

 

From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Summing up Option 7

 

Thanks for this Chuck - think it is really helpful.

 

I have made a couple of tweaks, specifically: 

 

I have deleted under b) the Reserved name phrase because the way it was
written it sounded as if these names were given a double status: they could
be regarded as either a 'Reserved name# or a 'modified reserved name' - I
think we for the purposes of option 7 we were regarding them as 'modified
reserved names'

 

I also have incorporated a small sentence on what additional rights an
applicant may have in order to apply for the string.

 

On a general note: I would insist that we make review of these
recommendations mandatory. There is a pretty good precedent for that, re the
URS where there is a provision that we should review the URS a year after
its operation. In my mind, considering that this recommendations seek to
reflect international statutes and conventions, it is of paramount important
that we make sure they are open for a review to establish their legitimacy
and appropriateness.

 

Thanks

 

Konstantinos 

 

 

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-Regulat
ion-isbn9780415477765

Selected publications:
http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038

Website: www.komaitis.org

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Πέμπτη, 16 Φεβρουαρίου 2012 1:00 μμ
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7

 

According to my understanding of our discussions, I definitely think that
you are on the right track Jeff.   I made some suggested edits that are
highlighted in the attached file, including an attempt to accommodate Alan's
comment.  Note that the edits reflect my personal thoughts and do not
necessarily represent the RySG; once we agree on language for option 7, I
will seek RySG input just like the rest of you will do with your groups.  I
am fully open to critique of my edits.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:42 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Summing up Option 7

 

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  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> 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.