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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

That is correct. Nothing we are doing should 
lessen their rights to file any objection.  Alan
At 27/02/2012 09:21 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 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>mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:08 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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>mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 6:15 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; 
> <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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; <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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: <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>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 / 
> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  / 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.