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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Considering the very tight time crunch, I wonder if a GNSO public comment 
period could be opened this coming week?  I understand that this would be 
unique but considering the circumstances, it might be the only way to have a 
public comment period and still get a recommendation approved at least for the 
top level prior to the end of the application period.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 8:30 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Gomes, Chuck; 'Lanre Ajayi'; Gregory Shatan; gnso-
> iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT: Modified Option
> 7
> 
> Thanks Jeff!
> 
> To a certain extent I do appreciate the need for speed given the very
> short deadlines this group has been given to produce its
> recommendations. However, my understanding has been that we had not
> determined when the public comment period will take place rather than
> if it will take place. I would like to urge this group to ask for a
> public comment period but, since this is an exceptional case, we let
> the Council decide at what stage of the process this period will
> commence and how long it lasts. Entities and individuals, other than
> the GNSO stakeholders, must be given the opportunity to comment on this
> issue should they wish to.
> 
> This is also  why I think it is  important the Council to be provided
> with as much information as possible, I.e.along with the option that
> will end up receiving rough consensus, we need to submit the ones that
> have received minimum support.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Konstantinos
> From: Jeff Neuman
> <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:10:11 +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,
> 
> Given the need to address prior to the end of the application period
> for the first round at the top level, the plan is to present our
> recommendations to the Council and hopefully the Council will present
> to the Board in Costa Rica.  These proposals have been out in the open
> from the very beginning and we have all been soliciting comments
> throughout the past several weeks/months from our constituencies and
> stakeholder groups as I know you have been soliciting comments from
> your own.  These proposals are also out for comment now. We are all
> working under significant time constraints to get these implementation
> issues addressed in this first round while the application round is
> open so that applicants can have some predictability and transparency.
> Obviously, we cannot control what the Council or Board will do once
> they get our recommendations.
> 
> This is the process we have discussed on each of the calls for the past
> month or two and I trust that this is the message you all have been
> delivering to your stakeholder groups/constituencies/ACs.  There were
> no objections voiced by the group during these calls to the process.
> 
> My personal hope, and not as the chair, but rather on a personal level,
> is that we can demonstrate that our processes are nimble enough so as
> to show that if an AC like the GAC makes an urgent time sensitive
> request like this one, that we can demonstrate that we do have the
> ability to address without sacrificing the very tenets of openness and
> transparency.   We still have a couple of weeks prior to Costa Rica, so
> hopefully to the extent there are additional comments, we can get them
> in the next two weeks.
> 
> 
> I am only speaking from my own individual viewpoint here and not in any
> formal capacity as the chair or as a Council member.   The Council and
> the Board will have to make their own calls with what to do with our
> recommendations when they get them.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
> 
> 
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent:   Sunday, February 26, 2012 05:54 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To:     Neuman, Jeff; Chuck Gomes; 'Lanre Ajayi'; Gregory Shatan; gnso-
> iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject:        Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: FOR IMMEDIATE COMMENT:
> Modified Option 7
> 
> 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><mailto:Jeff.Neum
> an@xxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:29:46 +0000
> To: Konstantinos Komaitis
> <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:k.komai
> tis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Chuck Gomes
> <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:cgomes@verisign
> .com>>, 'Lanre Ajayi'
> <lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxx.n
> g>>, Gregory Shatan
> <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@Ree
> dSmith.com>>, "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
> 
> 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><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@verisign
> .com><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:40:29 +0000
> To: Lanre Ajayi
> <lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxx.n
> g><mailto:lanre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jeff Neuman
> <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neum
> an@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Gregory Shatan
> <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@Ree
> dSmith.com><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><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><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> [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><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><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> [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><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><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> [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><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.neu
> man@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
>