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

["J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All:

I am also going to have to miss the call today due to a prior long-standing 
commitment.  That said, I believe the modified version of Option 7 shown below 
is a workable compromise solution.

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




________________________________
 From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:29 AM
Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7
 


Sorry Meeting in Geneva continues beyond 8.00 p.m. CET. I will miss the telco.

wolfganbg

________________________________

Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Gesendet: Mi 22.02.2012 10:45
An: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Summing up Option 7


Dear friends

I could get a problem today for the telco. I am sitting in the final meeting of 
the UNCSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement in Geneva and as it stands this 
morning this will become a long session. It could be that I will miss the 
telco. Not yet decided, but I wanted to flag it.

wolfgang 

________________________________

Von: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
Gesendet: Mi 22.02.2012 02:30
An: Jim Bikoff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Betreff: 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@xxxxxxxxxx
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] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:36 AM
To: Jim Bikoff
Cc: 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