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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Jeff.  

Any proposal now about the criteria or mechanisms that some future group
might use (prior to the second round) to decide whether and how to add
languages at the top level for that round is highly premature.  

It is equally premature to discuss now how we will deal with the
language issue at the second level.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:58 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Konstantinos Komaitis; Jim Bikoff; Shatan, Gregory S.;
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

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 
 
* * *
 
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