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

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

Thanks for this Debbie. Can you also please review the language that Jim sent 
around to the group to see if your organization could support that version?  It 
seems like it is consistent with your language, but let us know if we are 
missing something.

With respect to the foreign translations issue, we understand the concept as 
discussed last week.  The problem is in implementation.  In order to apply an 
algorithm in String Similarity review, there needs to be a delineated list to 
compare the applied for strings against.  So it would be really helpful to have 
a list of the language that you can think of for that review.

That said, if we did miss a string, perhaps making it clear that a "legal 
rights objection" could include the basis that the applied for string is a 
foreign translation of the IOC/RC modified reserved names would solve the 
problem by providing the catch all?

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: Hughes, Debra Y. [mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 9:58 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Summing up Option 7

Dear Jeff and Members of the Working Group,

In preparation for the forthcoming session of the International Olympic 
Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) names discussion group planned this coming 
Wednesday, we are sending the below on behalf of the International Committee of 
the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Societies and the American Red Cross.

We appreciate the proposal for Option 7 developed further to the discussion 
group's debates on 8 February last and wish to share herewith our observations. 
The recommendations outlined below would, we feel, assist in reflecting and 
enforcing the international protective regime of the Red Cross, Red Crescent 
and Red Crystal denominations (and related names) under universally accepted 
international humanitarian law norms.

Further to the last discussions of the working group regarding translations of 
the protected strings, our line of thinking and intended course of action is to 
prepare a non-exhaustive or illustrative list of languages (and of reserved 
denominations in the different languages), intended to complement a general 
clause specifying that the registration of the reserved denominations is 
prohibited in all languages and in all scripts in use on the internet.

With our very best regards,

Debbie Hughes

Option 7:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "modified reserved 
names" meaning:


a.       The names shall remain available as gTLD strings to the International 
Olympic Committee or to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
(Movement) respectively.

b.      Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity 
review to determine whether they are similar to those set forth in Section 
2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar 
to or liable to confusion with a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this 
initial review. In line with existing international norms, applications for the 
gTLD strings constituting translations or imitation of the modified reserved 
names in any language and any script in use on the internet shall be rejected. 
For practical purposes, a list of reserved denominations in languages 
frequently used on the Internet will be prepared by the IOC and Movement, 
respectively.

Alternative a

1.       Unlike other applied for gTLDs, however, the process would not end 
here.  Applicants for these strings, or those strings found to be similar or 
liable to confusion 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 and that the new gTLD does 
not represent any risk of confusion with the protected strings. The 
International Olympic Committee or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Movement shall be entitled to take part or to be consulted in such "extended 
evaluations", as required.

2.       The IOC and the International Red Cross or Red Crescent Movement shall 
also and respectively preserve the right to object if they disagree with an 
eventual "determination of rights or legitimate interests" by the String 
Similarity Review. They also reserve the right to issue respectively a letter 
of non-objection.
Alternative b

1.       If the applied-for gTLD matches, is similar to or liable to confusion 
with any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3 (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot 
be registered.

2.       If the applied-for gTLD fails initial string similarity review with 
one of those protected terms, the applicant may seek to :

                                 i.            obtain a letter of non-objection 
from the IOC or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as 
applicable; or

                               ii.            claim, under an "extended review" 
procedure, that it has a legitimate interest in the string and explain why it 
believes that the requested gTLD is not similar to or liable to confusion with 
one of the protected strings, and, in the case of the IOC names, makes evident 
that it does not refer to the IOC or any Olympic activity. The International 
Olympic Committee or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement 
shall be entitled to take part or to be consulted in such "extended reviews", 
as required.

                              iii.            a determination in favour of the 
applicant under this provision does not preclude the IOC, the International Red 
Cross and Red Crescent Movement, or another interested party from bringing a 
legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination.

Debra Y. Hughes
Senior Counsel

American Red Cross
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
202.303.5356 (p)
202.303.0143 (f)
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.