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

[Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think Jim's addition is necessary. These recommendations are for the 
top level name in any case.

Thanks

KK

From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:06:36 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Konstantinos 
Komaitis <k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 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>>, David Heasley 
<dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>, Kiran Malancharuvil 
<kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: Language Issue Solution

Jeff, we and the Red Cross only agreed to the limitation for the top level. We 
expect to review languages for the second level with all of the other second 
level issues. Maybe you should say "The Drafting Team recommends that at the 
top level of this initial round,..."

Jim

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>

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:58 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:22:20 +0000
To: Jeff Neuman
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Gregory
Shatan 
<GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
"gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
<gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: David Heasley 
<dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>,
Kiran Malancharuvil
<kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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:dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jim Bikoff; 
shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx><mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>;
christophe.lanord@xxxxxxxx<mailto: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><mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>
pdc1