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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Chuck – I think it would be reasonable to cite the Nairobi Treaty since 
this Treaty has been used as the justification for this special protection.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:24:23 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis 
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Jeff Neuman 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, "Novoa, Osvaldo" 
<onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 
29th

If we decide to take the approach of tying the list to signatures of the 
Nairobi treaty, I wonder whether it would make sense to define it that way so 
that any future signatures could also apply?

It would be helpful to me to find out how others in this DT feel about tying 
the list to the Nairobi treaty.  I can't claim to have enough expertise in this 
area to know whether that is a reasonable approach or not.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:12 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Novoa, Osvaldo
Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC
on Feb 29th
Thanks Jeff for your hard work – this is an excellent document. One
comment under Recommendation 2: I was under the impression that the
issue concerning the list of languages was not really settled,
especially given that the addition of more languages appears to be
going beyond the scope of international law instruments (e.g. the
Nairobi Treaty, which only has 50 signatories).
The current language at the end of the first paragraph of
recommendation 2 reads: "If such a list can be produced, the Drafting
Team may recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that
currently in the Applicant Guidebook." - I was wondering whether this
could be replaced (in line with what has been discussed) with the
following wording: "If such a list can be produced, the Drafting Team
will look at the way this list fits within the existing international
law instruments protecting these terms and determine whether it will
recommend the use of that list as a substitute to that currently in the
Applicant Guidebook".
Thanks again for your hard work on this.
Konstantinos
From: Jeff Neuman
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:38:29 +0000
To: "Novoa, Osvaldo" 
<onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
 <gnso-
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 for the comments. The first comment makes a lot of sense and I
have changed the wording.  See new revised version.
The second comment is more substantive, and I am going to ask the group
if there is anything we can do at this stage to define that more
clearly.  Does anyone have any suggestions?  If we can get to agreement
on something in the next day, then I will substitute the new wording.
Otherwise, we can leave this as a discussion point and resolve over the
next week.
Here is what that section states.  Please comment on the highlighted
portion.
                                             i.
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 attempt to override the string
similarity failure by:
1.      Seeking 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.
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: Novoa, Osvaldo [mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:30 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th
Dear Jeff,
It is an excellent job.  Thank you very much for your hard work.
I have consulted my constituency regarding the proposal, Recommendation
1, and the only observations I’ve received where:
Recommendation 1, lit. b.  Where it says “too similar”, we think it
would be more in line with the applicant guidebook to say “confusingly
similar”.
Recommendation 1, lit. c., ii. 2, b.  where it says « any Olympic or
Red Cross Red Crescent activity », the activities should be define more
clearly.
I’m sorry to submit these observations so near the call with the GAC.
I´ll be on the conversation next Friday.
Best Regards,
Osvaldo
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCF5F4.58A93010<mailto:image001.jpg@01CCF5F4.58A93010>]
Ing. Osvaldo Novoa
Sub Gerente General
R.I.I.C.
ANTEL
Tel: +598 2928 6444
E-mail: 
onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
De: 
owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Neuman, Jeff
Enviado el: Lunes, 27 de Febrero de 2012 06:54 p.m.
Para: 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Asunto: [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><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.
________________________________
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido
únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede
ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor
notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine
inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de
su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de
este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas
destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con
respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo
nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely
for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform
the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as
the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any
person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited.
ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without
respecting our Information Security Policy.