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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I have a procedural question which my constituency asks and I have seen it also 
being posed in other places: what is the process we will be following after 
these recommendations are sent to the Council? Most importantly will there be 
time for public comments before these recommendations are sent to the Board and 
the GNSO gets to decide whether to implement them?

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:29:46 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis 
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Chuck Gomes 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Lanre Ajayi' 
<lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 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

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<mailto: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><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:40:29 +0000
To: Lanre Ajayi 
<lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Jeff Neuman 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Gregory Shatan 
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><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>
 [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><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><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>
 [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><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><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>
 [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><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:+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