RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:
 
You're asking what happens if "another applicant was allowed to register
one of the Modified Reserved Names."  As I read (c)(i), this can't
happen: if the "applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified
Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be
registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC."
 
Greg
________________________________

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:02 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
Importance: High



Thanks Jeff.  I have a  couple questions that I inserted below.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:41 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7

 

All,

 

Pursuant to the call on Wednesday, please find enclosed the Modified
Option 7 as revised.  I have highlighted 2 areas where I have added some
language to address a couple of the points that were raised during the
call that would be unwanted unintended consequences to the existing
language.  The first is that in order to be consistent with (a) below
(allowing the IOC  or RCRC to apply for their own names), it did not
make sense to run a string similarity review on applications by the IOC
or RCRC, so language has been added in (b) to address this point.  The
second, is what appears now as (c)(ii)(4) which is the point that if the
IOC or RCRC grant a letter of non-objection or a similar string does get
through in this round because they were able to show a legitimate
interest, etc., then that should not preclude the IOC or the RCRC from
obtaining one of the Modified Reserved Names in this or any subsequent
round.

 

Please distribute this option to each of your constituencies,
stakeholder groups, ACs, etc. to get some feedback. I am really hoping
that we can obtain consensus on this option for the top-level to be able
to address with the GAC and Council next week and in Costa Rica.

 

*******************************************************************

 

Option 7:  Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified
Reserved Names," meaning: 
 

a)      The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the
International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective
components as applicable.  

 

b)      Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the
IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to
determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An
application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a
Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.  

 

c)      If an application fails to pass initial string similarity
review: 

 

                                    i.            And the applied-for
TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g.,
".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than
the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. 

 

                                   ii.            If the applied-for TLD
is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails
initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names,
the applicant may override the string similarity failure by: 

[Gomes, Chuck]  (1) This makes it sound like the applicant has the power
to override the string similarity review rejection on their own and I
don't think that is the case; I wonder if it would be better to say
something like "the applicant may appeal the string similarity failure
by".  (2) Who would process the appeal and make a decision as to whether
the appeal was approved?

 

1.       Attempting to obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or
the RCRC, as applicable; or

 

2.       If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant
must:
                    

a.       claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and
demonstrate the basis for this claim; and

b.       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, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent
activity.

 

3.       A determination in favor of the applicant under the above
provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other
interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise
contesting the determination.

 

4.       The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of
non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been
approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from
obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of
new gTLD applications.

[Gomes, Chuck] I may be missing something here but, in the case where
another applicant was allowed to register one of the Modified Reserved
Names, it seems to me that name would not be available to the IOC or
RCRC in the future.  If I am correct in my understanding, would a change
in wording like the following work: "The existence of a TLD that has
received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to
(ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the
IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the other applicable Modified Reserved
Names in any round of new gTLD applications." Or "The existence of a TLD
that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant
to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude
the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the available Modified Reserved
Names in any round of new gTLD applications."

 

 

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. 
 
* * *
 
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
pdc1