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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jeff - I was just wondering how we were doing this. Thanks for your hard 
work on this. Great job! 

Konstantinos 

Sent from my iPhone - excuse any typos

On 25 Feb 2012, at 13:31, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Konstantinos,
> 
> On the language issue, I still owe the status report and will get that out 
> today/tomorrow.  Sorry for the piecemeal way these are coming out, but doing 
> my best to get everything out,
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:   Saturday, February 25, 2012 05:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:     Gomes, Chuck; Lanre Ajayi; Neuman, Jeff; Gregory Shatan; 
> gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject:        Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT:  Modified 
> Option 7
> 
> Attempt to override and Lanre's language seem much better.
> 
> I would also like to hear from the IOC on the issue I have requested during 
> the call, which I think  is vital for our discussions with the GNSO and the 
> GAC next week – how does IOC foresee the process regarding the letter of 
> non-objection? We have heard from the Red Cross that they will not be 
> imposing any fees should they decide to provide a letter of non-objection. 
> Can we please have the views of the IOC on this issue?
> 
> I will be seeking feedback on this option 7 from NCUC/NCSG. Also, am I 
> missing something, but the issue of languages is not included in Jeff's 
> email; and there are still various concerns that I hope we will continue to 
> address.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Konstantinos
> 
> From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:40:29 +0000
> To: Lanre Ajayi <lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jeff Neuman 
> <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Gregory Shatan 
> <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
> "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
> 
> Lanre’s suggested change seems okay to me.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> From: Lanre Ajayi [mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 6:09 PM
> To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; Gomes, Chuck; 
> gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option 7
> 
> 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> 
> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
> [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<mailto: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<mailto: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> 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:41 PM
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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