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

["Lanre Ajayi" <lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fine with me but will like to suggest that the next paragraph "Attempting to
obtain a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable"
should then be replaced with "Seek a letter of non-objection from the IOC or
the RCRC, as applicable"

 

Lanre

 

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 10:27 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
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."

 

 

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  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> 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