RE: Protecting Olympic Words in Multiple Languages [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

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

Thanks Jim.  Again this is helpful for my understanding.

I am  not trying to be difficult.  It might be helpful if I communicated some 
context.  In the new gTLD PDP we grappled with the issue of local law versus 
international law and came to the conclusion that we should rely on 
international law because of the global nature of the Internet and the 
variations in local laws.  That is why I keep coming back to International law. 
 That does not necessarily mean that the arguments for using local law in the 
case of the IOC and RCRC, but it will be more consistent with the GNSO 
recommendations if we can tie any decisions back to international law.  I am 
not an attorney and not an expert on international law so I am not the right 
one to determine this, but if we are able to do that, it would help.

BTW, I appreciate the fact that you are making progress on the list of 
translated words.  That may indeed be the solution to our problem.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:16 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Protecting Olympic Words in Multiple Languages [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: 
Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on Feb 29th

Greg and Jeff are correct, in our view, in regard to protection of the Olympic 
terms in multiple languages.

The GAC letter provided a representative list of national jurisdictions 
providing protection either under the Nairobi treaty or national laws. The 
protection should, however, extend to all languages used for domain names.

The Olympic Movement, like the Internet, is global, and the protection afforded 
the Olympic marks should be commensurately global in scope. As the GAC letter 
observes,"Protection of the words Olympic and Olympiad advances the global 
public interest of assisting the IOC and its National Olympic Committees in 
fulfilling the non-profit mission of the Olympic movement...."  The GAC letter 
recommends, for example, that the Olympic terms be protected in Japanese, 
Norwegian, and Danish, even though these countries are not signatories to the 
Nairobi Treaty, and do not have special protective legislation. Japan and 
Norway have, however, hosted Olympic Games; Denmark has participated in the 
Olympic Games since their inception in 1896, and has a Danish National Olympic 
Committee.   In fact, virtually all countries participate in the Olympic Games 
and have National Olympic Committees, and they should be afforded this 
protection. Because the Internet is global, like the Olympic Movement, the 
scope of protection should cover all languages used in Internet domain names, 
in order to avoid circumvention through remote languages. In recognition of 
this fact, some countries that legislatively protect the Olympic marks, such as 
Greece, do so in all languages, not just in their native tongue.

Therefore, as requested, we are completing an initial schedule of the words 
"Olympic" and "Olympiad" translated into 61 representative languages from 
approximately 100 countries, for use during the  upcoming March 2nd 
teleconference with GAC members. As stated above, we believe that the true 
scope of protection should extend to all languages used for domain names. We 
are prepared to obtain additional translations accordingly.

Jim

James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>




________________________________
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:39 PM
To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Neuman, Jeff; Chuck Gomes; Novoa, Osvaldo
Cc: Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Draft Status Report to send to the GAC on 
Feb 29th

I believe that focusing solely on the treaties and not including the national 
laws would not be appropriate.  We would only be acknowledging half of the 
"unique tapestry of legal protections" that the GAC relied on in their 
proposal.  The GAC letter cites the "laws of multiple national jurisdictions," 
as well as the Geneva Conventions and the Nairobi Treaty as the basis for their 
proposal.  While many of these national laws are enabling laws for the 
treaties, there are exceptions.  Significantly, both the United Kingdom and the 
US have national laws protecting Olympic indicia but are not Nairobi 
signatories.  There may be similar situations vis a vis the RCRC and the Geneva 
Conventions.  At a minimum, the list of languages should be tied to the laws of 
the national jurisdictions that provide protection to the RCRC and the IOC, as 
well as the two treaties.

FYI, the exact language in the GAC letter is:

The proposal is based on the unique tapestry of legal protections provided to 
the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement through the Geneva Conventions, and to 
the IOC through the Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol, and 
through laws in multiple national jurisdictions. A representative listing of 
the national jurisdictions providing protection to Red Cross/Red Crescent and 
the IOC is provided in the attached Schedule B.


Greg


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:35 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Chuck Gomes; 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 - some thoughts: I am not sure I understand why this group has to 
go beyond and foresee future signatories of the Nairobi Treaty. The point I am 
trying to make is that here we have an international law instrument, which has 
also been used by the IOC and the GAC as a justification for this protection. I 
personally do not think this group (or any for that matter) has the legitimacy 
to go beyond this statute and in my eyes it looks as if we include protection 
in a 196 languages for instance that we go beyond this statute. This is another 
reason I think these recommendations have to be subject to periodic review.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:26:15 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis 
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Chuck Gomes 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, "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

Lets think about this as few of us are experts in this aspect of International 
Law.  I personally do not believe this should be an issue for the drafting team 
to consider (given our lack of expertise in this area), but I do think we 
should get that list as soon as possible.

The other question, which I do not have the answer to, is even if we tied it to 
the Nairobi Treaty, are we only tying it to the "official languages" of all the 
current and future signatories.  That could add up to a lot more than 50.

With these complexities, and given the facts that the application at the top 
level is cost prohibitive for most to try registering a translation of the 
modified reserved names, plus the IOC/RCRC could object to any language, all 
leads me personally to the conclusion that there is no real harm in being 
over-inclusive on the list of languages for the top-level.

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 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 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><mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:24:23 +0000
To: Konstantinos Komaitis 
<k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Jeff Neuman 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
 "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: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:owner-gnso-iocrc- 
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><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><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:38:29 +0000
To: "Novoa, Osvaldo" 
<onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Cc: 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
 <gnso- 
iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><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><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><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>

[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><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><mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/><file:///\\www.neustar.biz%3chttp:\www.neustar.biz\%3e>

________________________________
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.


* * *

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