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

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

My first reaction is that Konstantinos suggestion is reasonable.  Do any of you 
disagree?

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 3:40 PM
> To: Jim Bikoff; Jeff Neuman; Gregory Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution
> 
> 
> 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