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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

OK here too. Alan

At 24/02/2012 04:54 PM, J. Scott Evans wrote:
> 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: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:02 PM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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 / 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / 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