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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Happy with this wording!

Thomas


Am 13.03.2012 um 14:58 schrieb Neuman, Jeff:

> 
> My gut is that we should take all subjectivity out of it and basically just 
> state:
> 
> 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 recommends that for this initial round, the list of languages currently 
> provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient. 
> 
> This is more objective and should not lead to any debate
> 
> 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: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:47 PM
> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Jim Bikoff; Neuman, Jeff; Gregory Shatan; 
> gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution
> 
> 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
> 
>