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

["Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, J. Scott.  You addition makes sense and corrects the grammar.


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

From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 1:08 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; 'Neuman, Jeff'; Jim Bikoff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7

Dear All:

I am fine with the Red Cross's suggested tweaks to Option 7.  However, I have 
added in one word (seen below in red).

J. Scott

j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks - Yahoo! 
Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx

________________________________
From: "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Neuman, Jeff'" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>; 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7

All,

Please see Red Cross’s comments to the language presented by Jim below. We look 
forward to discussing this proposal shortly.

   a)      The Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings respectively to the 
International Olympic Committee and to the International Red Cross and Red 
Crescent Movement and its components  (collectively, the "IOC/RC") or their 
authorized agents, as applicable.
     b)      Applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity 
review to determine whether they are similar to or liable to cause confusion 
with those defined in Section 2.2.1.2.3 or any translations thereof in any 
language or script in use on the internet. An application for a gTLD string 
that is identified as too similar to or liable to confusion with a Reserved 
Name will not pass this initial review.
     c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review and if:
          (1) And the applied-for TLD matches any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3 
(e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross") or any translations thereof in any language 
or script in use on the internet, it cannot be registered by anyone other than 
the IOC or the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its 
components, respectively.
          (2) if the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the terms in 
2.2.1.2.3, but fails initial string similarity review with one of those 
protected terms:
                (a) The applicant may attempt to obtain a letter of 
non-objection from the IOC or the RC respectively; or
                (b) If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the 
applicant must shall maintain the possibility in an extended evaluation to
                    (i) claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and 
demonstrate the basis for this claim; and
                    (ii) explain why it believes that the new TLD is not 
confusingly similar to or liable to cause confusion with one of the protected 
strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC or the RC or any 
Olympic or Red Cross activity.
The International Olympic Committee or the International Movement of the Red 
Cross and Red Crescent shall be consulted in such an extended evaluation, as 
required.
                (c)  A determination in favor of the applicant under the above 
provision (b) would not preclude the IOC or the RC or any other interested 
party from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the 
determination.
unquote

Debbie

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

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:31 PM
To: Jim Bikoff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7

Thanks Jim.  I believe this proposal is very constructive and I would like to 
focus on this during tomorrow’s call.

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 Jim Bikoff
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:15 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7

Dear Alan and Thomas,

We have adopted your helpful suggestions in the revised Option 7 below.

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  
(collectively, the "IOC/RC") or their authorized agents, 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) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review:
          (1) And the applied-for TLD matches any of the terms in 2.2.1.2.3 
(e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than 
the IOC/RC, or their authorized agents.
          (2) If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the terms in 
2.2.1.2.3, but fails initial string similarity review with one of those 
protected terms:
                (a) The applicant may attempt to obtain a letter of 
non-objection from the IOC/RC; or
                (b) If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the 
applicant must:
                    (i) claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and 
demonstrate the basis for this claim; and
                    (ii) explain why it believes that the new TLD is not 
confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it 
does not refer to the IOC/RC or any Olympic or Red Cross activity.

                (c)  A determination in favor of the applicant under the above 
provision (b) would not preclude the IOC/RC or other interested parties from 
bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination.

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:36 AM
To: Jim Bikoff
Cc: cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7
Jim,
thanks for your proposal.

I have one question / suggestion for you.

        (2) If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the terms in 
2.2.1.2.3, but fails initial string similarity review with one of those 
protected terms, the applicant may attempt to:

            (a) obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or Red Cross; or

            (b) claim that it has a legitimate interest in the string; and


            (c) explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly 
similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not 
refer to the IOC, the Red Cross, or any Olympic or Red Cross activity.


                (d) A determination in favor of the applicant under this 
provision would not preclude the IOC, the Red Cross, or other interested 
parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the 
determination.
To me, there is no reason why a party that has obtained a letter of 
non-objection needs to make explanations as required by (c) since I am certain 
that such explanations will be asked for prior to issuing the letter of 
non-objection.

In the light of this assumption I am not sure whether the wording reflects 
that. One may read it as either (a) or (b) needs to be present together with 
(c).

I therefore suggest you put (b) and (c) in one section so that the clause reads:


     (2) If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the terms in 
2.2.1.2.3, but fails initial string similarity review with one of those 
protected terms, the applicant may attempt to:

            (a) obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or Red Cross; or

            (b) claim that it has a legitimate interest in the string; and 
explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of 
the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, the 
Red Cross, or any Olympic or Red Cross activity.


                (c) A determination in favor of the applicant under this 
provision would not preclude the IOC, the Red Cross, or other interested 
parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the 
determination.

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 21.02.2012 um 07:18 schrieb Alan Greenberg:

Jim,

My first reaction to Chuck question was similar to yours, however, on  thinking 
about it, how would we handle that situation where the organization who has the 
absolute rights to those strings chooses to, for whatever reasons, wants to 
have a third-party take responsibility for it.

Alan