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

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

Thanks Joy.

Can you please provide more information about this? I read the WIPO site on 
this topic and I have to tell you that even for an IP attorney, this is 
extremely difficult to comprehend.

>From what I understand, we are talking about a working group that is looking 
>into these issues as opposed to concepts that have been incorporated into law 
>in the various global jurisdictions.   I don't know enough about this to know 
>whether GAC members would welcome the reference to WIPOs work especially where 
>it seemingly could go against aspects of their latest proposal.   Leaving the 
>amorphous concept in our proposal, especially when not baked into law in most 
>global jurisdictions, seems to me to be a controversial concept.  If I am 
>wrong, please let me know.

It would be great to have a real live example of a mark that would not be 
trademarked somewhere in the world, whereby someone would have rights based on 
traditional knowledge and cultural heritage AND that would also be likely to 
want to seek out a TLD.

Often times, these exercises turn into looking at every theoretical possibility 
in order to come up with the perfect solution in the ideal worlds.  I would 
like (personally) to try and look at all truly realistic possibilities to come 
up with a solution that a consensus of the community can live with.

But again, this is my personal opinion and not that of the chair.

Best regards,

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: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:13 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Konstantinos Komaitis'; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Summing up Option 7

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> 
[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<mailto: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]<mailto:[mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:46 PM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; Neuman, Jeff; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org<http://www.komaitis.org>

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 11:42 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:04 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.