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

[Joy Liddicoat <joy@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff - some examples to illustrate the point:

.kiwi
.inca
.zulu
.igloo




Joy Liddicoat 

On 17/02/2012, at 10:27 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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] 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-Regulation-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-Regulation-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 / 
> 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.
>