ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-iocrc-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution

  • To: "Hughes, Debra Y." <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Kiran Malancharuvil" <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution
  • From: "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:09:38 -0400

Is the appropriate change:
 
1.  To remove the last sentence of Proposal 2
2.  To remove all of Proposal 2 (referring to as many languages as
feasible), or
3.  To edit Proposal 2 to support the utilization only of the languages
set forth in the AGB?
 
Leaving the rest of Proposal 2 doesn't seem to make sense to me, since
it is at odds with the proposed change below.  Thus, I would suggest the
amendment should be either 2 or 3 above.
 
Greg
 
Gregory S. Shatan 
Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group 
IP | Technology | Media 
ReedSmithLLP 
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 | Phone
917.816.6428 | Mobile
212.521.5450 | Fax
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com 


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hughes, Debra Y.
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:04 PM
To: 'Neuman, Jeff'; Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jim Bikoff; shankins@xxxxxxxx; christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution



Jeff,

The email was sent to the Drafting team email list (gnso-iocrc-dt.org).
Is there another list?

Debbie

 

 

Debra Y. Hughes 

Senior Counsel  

 

American Red Cross

2025 E Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

202.303.5356 (p)

202.303.0143 (f)

Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:55 PM
To: Kiran Malancharuvil; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jim Bikoff; Hughes, Debra Y.; shankins@xxxxxxxx;
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Languge Issue Solution

 

Thanks for this.  Can I ask that you please send this to the full
drafting team list so we can amend the motion?

 

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: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 4:12 PM
To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Jim Bikoff; debra.hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
shankins@xxxxxxxx; christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Languge Issue Solution
Importance: High

 

Dear Jeff and all:

                                                            

The RCRC and IOC representatives met this afternoon as requested, to
discuss the languages to be included for the String Similarity Review on
the top-level and for the first round only.  

 

The RCRC and IOC have agreed to limit the languages submitted for String
Similarity Review on the top-level and for the first round to those set
forth in the Applicant Guidebook in Section 2.2.1.2.3.  The parties have
decided to proceed this way in the spirit of cooperation and for
purposes of expediency, understanding that the parties both assert that
the list of languages as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook in Section
2.2.1.2.3 is only illustrative and the denominations have broader
protections in other languages that may be asserted in future rounds and
at the second level.  We hope that this spirit of cooperation will
resolve the discussions that have been held on the languages issue and
will help move this proposal forward to consensus. 

 

Accordingly, as this list has been previously verified, we recommend
that the last sentence of Recommendation 2 relating to vetting of the
list be deleted.  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Christophe Lanord, Debra Hughes, Jim Bikoff, Kiran Malancharuvil and
Stephane Hankins

 

 

Kiran J. Malancharuvil

Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.

Georgetown Place, Suite 120

1101 30th Street NW

Washington, DC 20016

(202) 944-3307 - Office

(619) 972-7810 - Mobile

kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx 
 
* * *
 
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


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy