Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you very much for the clarification Jim. We should, however, identify a 
way where any addition of new languages beyond this illustrative list should be 
done in a way that is not arbitrary. I am not certain how this can be achieved, 
but my point is to prevent the addition of languages without having a mechanism 
where a)the need to add the additional language is verified and, b) the 
addition is part of a clear and unambiguous  justification of why the terms 
should be protected because, especially under national laws.

Thanks

Konstantinos

From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:22:20 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: David Heasley <dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>, Kiran 
Malancharuvil <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

All,

Proposal 2 would now read as follows:

The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC “names should be protected in 
multiple languages—all translations of the listed names in languages used on 
the Internet…The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided 
are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive.”

The Drafting Team agrees that the list of languages currently provided in 
Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are illustrative and 
representative.
Other illustrative and representative languages can be added to the list later, 
to cover the second level and later application rounds.

Jim Bikoff


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, March 13, 2012 2:10 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; Neuman, Jeff; Kiran Malancharuvil; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jim Bikoff; shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>; 
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Languge Issue Solution
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<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>

pdc1