[gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, I understand now.  That makes sense.  For the status report I can 
generalize the statement to state that they can file an objection as opposed to 
calling out what type of objection it would be.

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: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:19 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

Jeff,

You mentioned in the status report that the IOC or RC could possibly file an 
objection based on trademark rights (Recommendation 3 for new gTLDs).  I was 
just suggesting that they might also be able to object to a string that they 
thought was confusingly similar (New gTLD recommendation 2), which applies to 
existing TLDs, new gTLDs and reserved names.  The question is whether a 
'Modified Reserved Name' would be treated like a reserved name.  I don't think 
any of us know what the answer is, but we could possibly make a recommendation 
in that regard.

Does that make sense?

Chuck

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:08 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

Thanks Chuck.  These are helpful suggestions.    I was wondering if you could 
explain the statement"  "Would it also be possible for the IOC or RCRC to file 
an objection based on new gTLD recommendation 2 regarding string similarity?  
Reserved names are included so the question that needs to be asked and answered 
is whether 'Modified Reserved Names' would apply.  We may need to make a 
recommendation in that regard."  I am not sure I follow.

ICANN Staff - Do you have the current list of all participants on the Drafting 
team that I can attach?

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: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:15 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

One more suggestion:  I think it would be good to show the DT membership to 
demonstrate that most stakeholder groups are represented and in particular to 
show that the IOC and RC are represented.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:07 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

Thanks Jeff.  I think this is well done and will be very helpful to those not 
part of the DT.

In the 2nd paragraph on page 2 that I copy here with suggested edits that are 
highlighted, I think it would be helpful to clarify that you are talking about 
recommendations for the top level only and that we are still working on 
translations:  "Next Steps ---  We are currently soliciting feedback from the 
Drafting Team and GNSO Community regarding DT recommendations at the top level 
and are also seeking to get feedback from the GAC in Costa Rica.  Assuming that 
a consensus is reached in the Drafting Team and Council that is also supported 
by the GAC, we will strive to hold a GNSO Council vote in Costa Rica on the 
recommendations to send to the ICANN Board.  Note that the DT is still working 
on the translation issue. "

The first full paragraph on page 4 says: "In addition, the Drafting Team also 
notes that even in the unlikely event that some third party applies for an IOC 
or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, 
as applicable, may still challenge that new gTLD application under a "Legal 
Rights Objection" as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook."  Would it also be 
possible for the IOC or RCRC to file an objection based on new gTLD 
recommendation 2 regarding string similarity?  Reserved names are included so 
the question that needs to be asked and answered is whether 'Modified Reserved 
Names' would apply.  We may need to make a recommendation in that regard.

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: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:54 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

All,

As previously discussed, in order to be able to secure the call with the GAC on 
Friday, I had to commit to drafting a status report on the current state of 
affairs with the drafting team and the recommendations.  Please find enclosed 
what I drafted over the weekend and let me know if you have any questions, 
comments or concerns.  It is a report from the chair and has no official 
status.  I put in a bunch of disclaimers in the first footnote about that.

Thanks for your help with this and I look forward to having a productive 
conversation on Friday with interested GNSO Council and GAC members.


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.