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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fine with me!

Thanks for all the hard work.

Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 24.02.2012 um 23:10 schrieb "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> Fine with me.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: J. Scott Evans [mailto:jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:54 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Shatan, Gregory S.; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
>  
> I am fine with it.
>  
> j. scott evans - senior legal director, global brand and trademarks - Yahoo! 
> Inc. - 408.349.1385 - jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Shatan, Gregory S." <gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Gomes, Chuck" 
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
>  
> I think that works.  Does anyone object to adding those words “attempt to” 
> before  override?
>  
> 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: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:26 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
>  
> Perhaps we should say "attempt to override."  Otherwise it sounds like the 
> applicant can unilaterally discard the String Similarity failure.
>  
> Greg
>  
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 4:23 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
> Thanks Chuck. 
>  
> -          We chose override over “appeal” because the word “appeal” made a 
> number of the IP attorneys nervous in that it was basically implying that the 
> string similarity panel had some sort of legal standing or could set 
> precedent.  So, override was something that they all could agree to.
> -          As far as who hears it, that is an implementation detail we will 
> leave to ICANN staff.   Too controversial for us to discuss in the working 
> group (I believe).
>  
>  
> In the last paragraph, remember, if it is on the Modified Reserved Names 
> list, no one other than the IOC or the RC can register.  You don’t even get 
> to the stage of getting a letter of non-objection because it is an identical 
> match.  So, by definition, the names on the Modified Reserved Names list will 
> be available to the IOC /RC.
>  
> Hopefully that helps.
>  
> 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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:02 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.”
>